Pubs in Tower Hamlets – An Evidence Base Study
April 2017 Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 3 Purpose of this study ...... 3 Overview of pub closures ...... 3 Overview of policy and legislative framework ...... 4 Research Aim and Methodology ...... 6 Research methodology to be used and data to be collected ...... 6 Introduction to the study areas ...... 7 Pub categorisations ...... 8 Background to Pubs and their Definition as Community Facilities ...... 8 History and origins of the public house ...... 9 The contemporary public house ...... 9 The approach to public houses today within the planning system ...... 10 Supporting amendments to the planning system ...... 11 Relevent planning legislation ...... 11 Summary ...... 12 Findings, Analysis & Evaluation ...... 13 The decline of pubs – the extent of the problem ...... 13 Has the decline worsened in recent years? ...... 13 Vacant pubs and former pub sites ...... 15 Relevant policy in the study areas ...... 15 Change of use – Permitted Development ...... 16 Change of use – Full applications ...... 18 Heritage ...... 19 Application of policy ...... 19 Population & cultural factors ...... 21 Community value ...... 23 The effect on communities of pub closure ...... 24 Creation of new pubs...... 25 Diversification of pubs ...... 26 Conclusions & Recommendations ...... 27 Overview ...... 27 Recommendations ...... 28 Bibliography ...... 32 Appendix 1 – Map ...... 39 Appendix 2 – Definitions of pub categorisations ...... 40 Appendix 3 –Subsequent use of closed pubs within the study areas by pub type .. 42 Appendix 4 – Pubs within Tower Hamlets ...... 49
Executive Summary
This paper has been produced to inform the Council’s Local Plan. Much concern has been raised about the loss of pubs within Tower Hamlets and this paper sets out how the Council might provide additional support to pubs through strengthened planning policy. It analyses the reasons for pub closures in recent years, explores the extent to which the planning system has had a role in the decline of pubs and compares Tower Hamlets to other areas of London and England to ascertain whether Tower Hamlets has faced particular challenge in comparison to other areas.
By categorising pubs according to their characteristics and function, the study was able to assess the relative community value of pubs and investigate whether particular types had been more prone to loss than others. The categorisations devised were:
Community local Edge of centre community Town centre pub Isolated rural pub Isolated urban pub Pub-restaurant Special interest pub
The study found that overall the loss of pubs in Tower Hamlets was significantly greater than other study areas; there was a net loss of 57% between 2000 and 2016 compared to 44.3% across all study areas. It was the scale of losses in Tower Hamlets though that inflated the overall average; with Tower Hamlets excluded the average dropped to 26.1%. In total 161 pubs in Tower Hamlets closed over the study period, with three new ones opening. It was found that two thirds of pubs which closed were ‘community locals’, in other words those which provided most community benefit in terms of offering a space for people to meet and come together. The study also found that the loss of pubs has also had particular impacts on communities of shared interest, for example the LGBT community, and impacted the availability of space for live music and other performing arts at ‘grass routes’ level.
The study found that a number of closures across the study areas, almost 30%, were as a result of permitted development. It therefore recommended that the Council lobby for the removal of permitted development rights on pubs, consider introducing Article 4 directions removing permitted development from pubs and promote the nomination of pubs as Assets of Community Value (ACV).
Most changes of use, particularly within Tower Hamlets, were subject to full applications though so the study recommends that Local Plan policy be strengthened. The study found evidence of applicants undermining the viability of pubs and manipulating policy requirements, for example by being seen to ‘re- provide’ pubs through redevelopment but not providing sufficient floorspace to make them viable. These spaces were often subsequently converted to other
1 uses, mostly residential. The Recommendations section of the report sets out how the Council could strengthen policy and sets out reasoned justifications.
The study also recommends a revised approach to new pubs in Tower Hamlets. The current Local Plan directs new facilities to town centres, but this means that where a community loses a valued pub it is challenging to create a new one on an alternative site. Therefore where proposed pubs are local in nature and scale, policies should support proposals outside of town centres.
2
Introduction
Purpose of this study
There has been much concern in recent years at the rate of closures of public houses (pubs) not just within Tower Hamlets but across London and the rest of England. In mid-2016 the national closure figure stood at around twenty-nine each week, according to figures released by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA). This was identical to 2015 figures, with London seeing particularly high levels of closure.
Within Tower Hamlets, the loss of pubs has been frequently cited as a concern by local residents. The Council’s “Our Borough, Our Plan: A new Local Plan first steps” Local Plan engagement consultation in early 2016 drew numerous written comments in support of the proposal to bring forward pub protection policies, as well as verbal support at public events and informal comment through social media. There have been high-profile closures and campaigns in the borough alongside much media coverage. Across London and elsewhere, planning authorities have been bringing forward specific and enhanced policies protecting pubs from unnecessary loss. This is backed by provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) and the London Plan (2015) which support pubs as community facilities alongside a growing number of research papers which highlight the social value of pubs as community facilities. Therefore not only is the issue of pub protection a key issue for local people, but also of great contemporary relevance to planning practice.
This paper has therefore been drafted to inform the Council’s approach to protecting pubs and to provide evidence to robustly support any Local Plan policy that might be brought forward.
Overview of pub closures
There are a number of general reasons put forward by various sources as contributing to the decline of pubs, including:
Changing drinking patterns including lower alcohol consumption per capita, an increase in population who do not drink for cultural and religious reasons, and increased home consumption Competition from large retailers who are able to undercut on price Competition from ‘town centre’ bars attracting younger people away from ‘traditional’ community and neighbourhood pubs Modern attitudes towards, and legal limits on, ‘drink-driving’ which particularly affects rural pubs The smoking ban introduced to pubs in 2008 Increased drinks prices partly as a result of taxation The recession from 2008 which impacted disposable incomes and spending The way in which some pubs are forced to operate through so called ‘ties’
3
While undoubtedly there are numerous pubs across the country that had become genuinely redundant, there have been multiple examples of valued and well-used pubs that have been lost without proper consideration or that have been intentionally undermined. More fundamentally for the purposes of this study, many pubs (and not necessarily vacant ones) have been converted to other uses such as ‘local’ format supermarkets, betting shops and restaurants or demolished altogether through the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which has resulted in much criticism of the planning system itself. More recent amendments to the GPDO also mean pubs can change to offices (B1) for a limited period. This has been used to undermine proper scrutiny of proposals where applicants seek other uses, predominantly residential, so as to evade evidence requirements associated with the loss of community facilities. Change of use can be made to something other than a pub with less stringent requirements first.
Additionally, the acute need for housing especially in south-east England and London (where one third of pub closures occur) has resulted in land values for residential development far in excess of the financial value of pubs as going concerns. This means that pubs have been targeted by investors for their potential development value, with change of use the only way that an acceptable return can be made. As a result, rather than just genuinely redundant pubs that are being lost it is also those that are well-used and supported. Even where Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have protection policies in place there are accusations that developers can circumvent justification requirements by intentionally ‘running down’ pubs to manipulate unprofitability or set unrealistic rent levels to deter interest by potential operators. There have been numerous examples of closures due to new owners of pub sites implementing unreasonable rent increases on tenants, for example The Truscott Arms in Maida Vale1. Even where developers have offered ‘re-provision’ of the pub concerned in order to meet policy requirements and secure planning consents, the promised pub very rarely comes to fruition. Most often the proposed trading space is too small to be realistically viable as a pub, with subsequent conversion of the ‘un-lettable’ space to residential use the ultimate aim (or where residential use isn’t possible, such units almost inevitably get let for alternative commercial use often through permitted development).
Overview of policy and legislative framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 70 recognises public houses as community facilities, for which LPAs should “plan positively” to “enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments”, including guarding against “unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs” (DCLG, 2012). With particular regard to rural communities, paragraph 28 cites public houses as local services to be retained. Specifically to London, through Policy 4.8B.c and paragraph 4.48A of the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) the Mayor of London brought forward a requirement for boroughs to strengthen policy to protect pubs (GLA, 2015). Various LPAs have existing Local Plan policies of some level to protect pubs, generally through
1 http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/05/londons-best-sunday-roast-pub-closed-after-colossal-rent-hike-6050451/
4 policies on community facilities and/or town centres as is the case in Tower Hamlets. More recently some have adopted or consulted on additional guidance through Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) or Local Plan revisions.
CAMRA have lobbied the government for pubs to be removed from the A4 use class and placed into the ‘Sui Generis’ category. This would require a planning application with opportunity for public representations before any change of use. A debate on this issue was held in Parliament on 12th February 2015. A concession, announced in January 2015, required pubs designated as Assets of Community Value (ACV) to be subject to full applications for any change of use (The Guardian, 2015). Furthermore, the 2015 GPDO Consolidated Order required applicants to submit written notice to LPAs giving notice (fifty-six days) before implementing change of use under permitted development. This allows time for ACV nominations to be received. However, with evidence from CAMRA suggesting that an average of two weekly closures are as a result of conversion to local supermarkets, that leaves a further twenty-seven lost for other reasons including those that do require a planning application.
5
Research Aim and Methodology
This paper will seek to ascertain the extent to which existing legislation guiding the planning system has contributed to the loss of pubs both locally within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and more generally across the country, and assess whether existing policies on change of use are effectively drafted and applied. It will suggest measures that might be required and justified within the planning system to better protect pubs as community assets if existing policy provision is found in need of being strengthened, or indeed set out how else the Council might seek to support and protect local pubs.
It will achieve this by analysing pub closures in a diverse set of study areas to provide an effective basis from which to ascertain the extent to which alleged shortcomings in the planning system outlined in the Introduction have resulted in unnecessary loss of pubs as community facilities. The study of different locations will also provide comparisons through an assessment can be made as to whether Tower Hamlets faces particular challenges over and above other local authorities.
This will be achieved by assessing:
1. Whether the planning system has contributed to the decline of public houses in England
2. Whether the decline of pubs has worsened in recent years
3. Whether pubs have particular social value that makes them worth saving through strengthened policy
4. The role that the planning system should take on this subject in future
5. What action the Council should take to support pubs
Research methodology to be used and data to be collected
The study will investigate the number of pub closures in a set of diverse localities, ascertaining the subsequent use of each site and the extent to which the planning system had a role to play in closure. This will use empirical research conducted utilising existing secondary data covering the period 1st January 2000 – 31st December 20162, such as officer/committee reports, decision notices, appeals, representations and press coverage.
Four areas including London Borough of Tower Hamlets have been selected on which to focus study due to them having differing characteristics which provides a useful basis to analyse different challenges:
Chelmsford (split into two areas – rural and urban)
2 This paper has been amended to include the period to the end of the Council’s Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation
6
Ipswich London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Introduction to the study areas
Chelmsford - Urban Chelmsford is a generally prosperous area. The lowest ranking ward on the most recent Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was 4,748th in the country compared to 1,338th in Barking and Dagenham, 1,125th in Ipswich and 405th in Tower Hamlets. Its highest ranking, or least deprived, was 32,458th compared with 30,627th in Ipswich, 26,281st in Tower Hamlets and 17,446th in Barking & Dagenham. The average income is 11.6% above the national average. House prices are 53% higher than the national average.
Chelmsford - Rural For demographic analysis it was not possible to separate the urban area of Chelmsford compared to the rural, though it can be assumed that it is typical of other rural areas. It contains many small isolated villages as well as some larger settlements so allows analysis of issues facing rural areas compared to urban communities.
Ipswich Ipswich is an urban area in the East of England and provides a useful basis for comparison as it is generally not as economically prosperous as Chelmsford. It has a mixture of neighbourhoods at varying levels of the IMD including many at the lower end. Average earnings are almost 10% below the national average and house prices almost exactly in line with the national average.
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Barking & Dagenham is the most deprived of the four study areas in terms of the IMD. Being within London, house prices are higher than the national average but are low by London standards; it is the cheapest borough in which to purchase property. Salaries are lower than the national average. Its inclusion has been considered for two reasons. Firstly, it provides a balance to the challenges faced by inner-city boroughs such as Tower Hamlets. Secondly, having recently adopted enhanced pub protection policies it allows some analysis as to whether such policies are effective which will be vital for the conclusions of this research.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets is an inner city borough with very high land prices – Land Registry data shows the average house price was £444,979 at June 2015 but within the borough closest to the City of London averages were as high as £762,934. Average salaries are high, but there is also great disparity in terms of deprivation and income. It is a very ethnically diverse borough. The population has been fast increasing and there is great pressure for housing; the borough’s annual housing target recently increased from 2,885 to 3,931.
7
Pub categorisations
Different types of pubs have been assessed to evaluate the extent to which they really are community facilities, utilising categorisations informed by a similar study commissioned by Cambridge City Council as a basis (GVA Humberts Leisure 2012: 22). The categories devised are set out below:
Community local Edge of centre community Town centre pub Isolated rural pub Isolated urban pub Pub-restaurant Special interest pub
These will be used to help assess whether it is appropriate that the planning system pays particular regard to protecting pubs compared to other facilities, and full definitions of these categories along with justifications are set out in Appendix 2. This allows better judgement of the extent to which they are community facilities and whether some types of pub are more prone to loss than others.
Some pubs might transcend definitions and in that scenario the dominant characteristic would prevail. For example, a pub catering to a particular musical interest group featuring live bands most nights would be classed as a ‘special interest pub’ whereas a ‘community local’ featuring live music at weekends would still be a ‘community local’. The definitions measure general characteristics rather than occasional extreme peaks, such as proximity to sporting stadiums or other arts and event venues.
Only ‘pubs’ have been included in this study, rather than ‘bars’ or any other venue within the A4 use class. Clearly there is room for discrepancy between these definitions but the categorisations put forward give a robust basis for assessment. Broadly, a pub will have genuinely open access to all members of the community (albeit with possible minimum age restrictions) regardless of background and dress code. Typically, they will be places that individuals or groups can visit to engage with others and provide an informal meeting place at different times of day or night. Bars on the other hand might have more control over who can enter sometimes through prohibitive pricing or dress code (actual or perceived), be less conducive to holding community meetings, and be geared more towards the ‘town centre’ night-time economy. Of course, there will always be some ‘bars’ that have ‘pub’ characteristics, and vice versa.
The study will outline examples of pub protection policies that have been implemented, enabling an assessment of best-practice to inform recommendations.
The past effectiveness of the planning system will be assessed with regards to protecting pubs to make recommendations for future policy provision and the ongoing role of the planning system in pub protection using the evidence collected.
8
Background to Pubs and their Definition as Community Facilities
History and origins of the public house
The concept of the ‘pub’ as the centre of community life, a “home from home available to everyone” with “general admission and belonging” (Clarke 2012: 39) for people to meet first emerged around the 18th Century (Smith, M. 1983: 370). Sandiford & Divers highlighted their role in assisting early trade associations, unions and socialist movements (2011: 767). Until relatively recently, pubs were associated most as places for the working classes.
The actual origins of these public facilities can be traced back to Roman times, when they were known as ‘Mansiones’ and ‘Diversoria’ primarily catering to travellers. The first link with alcohol came with religious hostelries serving beer brewed by monks (Sandiford & Divers 2011: 766). Later these became ‘alehouses’ and ‘taverns’ with a focus on ale or wine (Smith, M. 1983: 367), though they came to be associated with poor behaviour and illicit and illegal activity. Following an order by the Council of the North removing “superfluous alehouses”, promoting “honest conversation” and “keeping good order” (Iles 1903: 255), they became places for an “array of social and leisure activities” (Clark 1983: 232) in common with the functions of pubs recognised today.
The contemporary public house
Pubs come in a number of different forms. Useful categorisation is provided by GVA Humberts Leisure in a report for Cambridge City Council (2012:22), with London Borough of Lewisham echoing these with similar definitions (April 2012: 3). These include community pubs primarily serving residential communities, town centre pubs that tend to have late licences and may focus on younger clientele, and food-led pubs where food is significant to overall sales. The latter may never have been a ‘pub’ but “a restaurant dressed as a pub” (GVA 2012: 22). This echoes Mutch’s account describing new venues inspired by the character of traditional pubs found alongside new housing estates and major thoroughfares (2010: 522). Additionally, rural pubs are distinctly recognised within paragraph 28 of the NPPF, and are described by Smith as ‘essential to the sustenance of village life’ (Smith, R., 2008: 372). The loss of such pubs can “threaten the viability of communities and affect some people severely” (Mid Suffolk District Council 2004).
Recent evidence from the Royal Society for Public Health classed pubs as amongst the most health promoting commercial uses, as despite negative impacts of alcohol consumption they support community interaction and have a positive impact on mental wellbeing (2015: 5). The report also cites examples of social events commonly held by pubs, such as quizzes, live music and showing live sports, as well as offering space for parties and other gatherings, and having links with external clubs and societies. A study by Emslie et al (2013: 36) found that for men in mid-life, drinking together in the pub is an “integral part of making and maintaining male friendships” and also helped men to talk to each other and provide social support.
9
Additionally, pubs might cater to distinct social or ethnic groups. For example, historically Irish pubs provided vital connections for immigrants seeking work and selling services (Sandiford and Divers 2011: 769) and today opportunities to connect with like-minded people are equally important. Such studies therefore promote the value of pubs as community facilities and in planning terms this is reflected and promoted by the NPPF.
The approach to public houses today within the planning system
The NPPF seeks to protect pubs to enhance the sustainability of communities (2012: 9 & 17). The London Plan also refers to pubs in that context, referencing their importance in securing ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’ (2011: 141) with enhancement in the adopted Further Alterations (FALP) (2015: 146). This requests boroughs to bring forward policies to “retain, manage and enhance public houses”, influenced by a paper drafted by Conservative assembly member Steve O’Connell.
A few London authorities have adopted supplementary guidance on protecting pubs. For example, Barking & Dagenham adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in June 2014 in response to the borough losing 41.6% of its pubs. The majority of those had closed within the previous ten years leaving only twenty-eight in operation. Waltham Forest consulted on a ‘Public Houses SPD’ in December 2014 which acknowledges the large housing growth expected in the borough, but that ‘important community facilities’ such as pubs need protecting to ‘secure a sustainable pattern of development and enhance the quality of life for existing and new residents’ (2014:2). While the decline of pubs in Waltham Forest had not been as marked as in Barking and Dagenham (35%), there had been twenty-three closures in the five years to 2014 with nine premises vacant. In contrast to Barking and Dagenham, a significant number of pubs in Waltham Forest are of heritage value. Lewisham produced a detailed evidence base study in 2012 and in September 2014 they reported that policy proposals would feature in the borough’s draft development management policies (2014: 2). In 2015, Camden, Southwark and Westminster consulted on options for stronger pub protection policies, focusing particularly on evidence of viability and Wandsworth intend to remove all permitted development from pubs across the borough through an ‘Article 4’ direction (2015: 1).
Outside of London with the exception of Cambridge City Council who have strengthened policy and commissioned evidence, there appear to be few examples of specific guidance or policies. Mid Suffolk District Council adopted supplementary planning guidance in 2004 (this was for the retention of rural services, though pubs featured prominently), and West Berkshire issued a guidance note in 2000. This dearth of enhanced protection outside of London is potentially useful as a basis to compare the approaches of authorities with and without specific policy, to ascertain whether adopted policy is effective in protecting pubs.
However, public houses fall within a general use class – A4 drinking establishments – which means that regardless of vitality, viability and value to the
10 community they have been subject to change of use through permitted development.
Supporting amendments to the planning system
CAMRA have been proactive in their assertion that changes must be made to the planning system to better protect pubs. In association with the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), a think tank on local government and democracy, they produced a report in June 2014 setting out recommendations for local government, particularly Planners and Councillors. Again, the report argued the importance of pubs within the community as well as being ‘central to local history and heritage’ (Walker 2014, p.1), though acknowledge (p.3) that it is challenging for councils to act when community pubs are threatened. The report was centred on ‘community pubs’, returning to the previous identification of different types of pubs and their relative merits. That said, contributors including Jonathan Wade warned about the risks of being too ‘prescriptive’ over what constitutes a community pub, suggesting blanket protection in order to allow flexibility in defending assets (p. 13). The report also cited the issue of providing new housing, often a strategic priority, which creates conflict when change of use applications are received. Also, in some areas land values for residential development far outweigh the value for even highly successful pubs as ‘going- concerns’ (p. 13). Also identified is the principle of localism and the participation of citizens in decision-making, something which has been denied to communities where change of use fell within permitted development.
Other reports produced by CAMRA included a representation to Government on Community Rights, highlighting loopholes undermining the Community Right to Bid and raising concern as to onerous requirements being placed on communities looking to list Assets of Community Value (CAMRA 2014). A further representation suggesting changes to the General Permitted Development Order (termed ‘Pubs Matter’) informed the February 2015 parliamentary debate on pubs and planning, proposing that pubs become ‘Sui Generis’ thus removing the risk of change of use without need for a planning application (Brown 2014).
In contrast to the arguments of CAMRA and others, a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs assessing the decline of the British pub concluded that the leading cause of UK pub closures had been taxation, regulation (notably the smoking ban and the alcohol duty escalator) and falling real wages, along with long-term cultural changes (Snowden 2014: 40). While the report fails to discuss any critiques of the planning system outlined by others, it emphasises the planning system isn’t necessarily the whole cure or reason for the decline of pubs.
Relevant planning legislation
For many years pubs were not attached to a particular use class so it could be considered that their status was similar to ‘Sui Generis’ used today. Early Town and Country Planning (Use Class) Orders of 1950, 1963 and 1972 defined ‘shops’ as being “a building used for the purpose of any retail trade wherein the primary purpose is the sale of goods by retail” but excluded purposes including “premises (other than a restaurant) licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors for
11 consumption on the premises”. It is interesting to note that other uses excluded from retail within early Orders are today classed as Sui Generis such as betting offices, funfairs and petrol stations.
It was the 1987 amendment to the Use Class Order that brought pubs into a defined use class, placed within Part A under class A3 (“Food and drink”) which also included restaurants. This remained until 2005, when re-classification saw drinking establishments and hot food takeaways moved into newly created classes of A4 and A5 respectively. Usefully, guidance was provided stating that so long as the primary purpose of the establishment was the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises a pub could be considered to be A4 “irrespective of the square footage which may be given over to dining as an additional service, or the revenue derived from that function” (ODPM 2005). Correspondingly, a small bar within a defined restaurant could be considered ancillary to the main A3 use.
Part 3 of the GPDO legislation in 1995 allowed the change from A3 (food and drink) to A1 (shops) without need for a planning application. The 2005 amendment which created the new drinking establishment (A4) use class allowed change of use to A3 (restaurants and cafes), A2 (financial and professional services) and A1 (shops). This was further broadened via an amendment in 2013 to include temporary change of use to B1 (offices) for a two year period, except for where the building was listed. The 1995 order also permitted demolition of properties subject to prior approval by the relevant LPA. This has impacted pubs where they are not within conservation areas or listed.
Most recently, the 2015 Consolidated Amendment to the GPDO removed change of use from A4 or demolition if the building is a specified building, defined as having been designated as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) or land unsuccessfully nominated as such under section 93 of the Localism Act 2011. Furthermore, even where not a specified building, applicants must contact the relevant LPA in writing not less than fifty-six days prior to the commencement of works to query whether the building has been nominated. It is possible for the building to be nominated after receipt of the applicant’s query. Where there is no nomination, the change of use must be completed within one year of the date of the notification.
Summary
There is a lack of literature specific to pubs and planning practice. Aside from local planning policy, many of the publications that do exist are politically partisan (such as the GLA Conservatives report) or come from a particular bias (CAMRA are a pro-pub campaign group and the Institute of Economic Affairs a right-leaning think tank). The IPPR report looked at pub operations more generally, such as funding, reform of operating models, taxation and services provided rather than the role of planning practice. Therefore, a gap exists for objective research into the role of the planning system in the protection of pubs and the comparison between approaches and outcomes in diverse localities which this study can address.
12
Findings, Analysis & Evaluation
The decline of pubs – the extent of the problem
Overall, the five study areas saw a net loss of 44.3% of pubs since 1st January 2000. The loss in percentage terms and absolute numbers was greatest in Tower Hamlets; of 275 open on 1st January 2000 well over half have closed (161 pubs, so 58.1%). Three new pubs opened in that time, giving a net loss of 57%. Second in terms of percentage decline was Barking & Dagenham which dropped 47.8%, though some changes of use were actively supported by the Council in that area due to previous disorder and to support regeneration.
The study area with the lowest level of decline was the Chelmsford rural area (17.6%), with the urban part of the City Council boundary second at 19.4%. Ipswich saw thirty pubs close but the highest number of new pubs open giving a net decline of 27%,.
In total 14.9% of pubs (thirty-seven) were vacant or demolished without redevelopment. However, the vacancy of pubs should be treated with some caution given evidence presented subsequently that pubs are deliberately left empty or run down to provide evidence of unviability to enable change of use applications.
Tables setting out this information in full, broken down by area, pub categorisation and subsequent use can be found in Appendix 4.
Has the decline worsened in recent years?
The data shows peaks and troughs across all study areas. Looking at closures in terms of numbers of pubs would suggest the situation has been improving, but the current lower numbers in Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham merely reflect such high numbers closing in earlier years that continuation at previous numerical levels would leave no pubs at all by 2030. Instead, measuring percentage change shows some of the highest rates of decline to be more recent (2013-2015).
Two thirds of closures have been ‘community locals’, in other words the pubs which can be considered most important in bringing local people together and providing facilities within local communities.
In Tower Hamlets over two thirds of ‘community locals’ were converted to residential use. During the early years of the study period it was arguably more justifiable to support such losses as the compactness of the borough meant alternative pubs were available within 300m, as stipulated by the planning policy of the time. This argument has now become difficult as in some parts of the borough there simply aren’t any alternatives within such a radius. Appendix 1 demonstrates the spread of open and closed pubs across all study areas and highlights concentrations of losses and areas for this there would now appear to be under-provision.
13
Arguments frequently used by applicants in Tower Hamlets more recently have tended to focus on demographic change, the introduction of the smoking ban and recession. For example, an application at the Royal Charlie stated the pub has “low value to the community, much of which does not drink any alcohol for religious reasons anyway” (The Planning & Design Bureau 2014: 20) and the Old Duke of Cambridge’s justification alludes to this by setting out the proportion of those identifying as Christians and Muslims (Washington Young LLP :11). This notion will be challenged subsequently.
In Ipswich almost a third of ‘community locals’ became A1 retail of which five pubs became local-format supermarkets. In Barking & Dagenham four ‘community local’ pubs converted to A1, two local-format supermarkets. Both examples in Chelmsford of this type of development are analysed subsequently due to contentiousness.
‘Edge-of-centre community’ declined by 31.8% over the sixteen years. Losses in this category tended to be to other commercial uses through permitted development, mostly A3. A field study was undertaken which found them to be less conducive to residential development than ‘community locals’ as they tend to be in local/neighbourhood town centre or secondary frontage environments, and are less favourable for major convenience supermarket operators due to lack of car parking and insufficient floorspace.
38% of ‘special interest’ pubs closed although this was based on small numbers. Two have been recent controversial closures of LGBT pubs in Tower Hamlets. The Joiner’s Arms, a popular and iconic venue for the LGBT community from a wide area, closed in early 2015 reportedly ahead of proposed residential development. Its value has been demonstrated by a vociferous campaign for re- opening and successful nomination as an ACV (Davis 2015). The nearby Nelson’s Head closed due a reported significant increase in rent. This is significant, because venues for the LGBT community have declined by around 25% in recent years (Guardian 2015) and the only LGBT venue in Chelmsford had their lease terminated in 2015. This demonstrates the importance of pubs for communities of shared interests and orientations, not just for geographical communities, and also suggests that proximity to alternative pubs shouldn’t necessarily be an adequate justification for loss because the two pubs may cater to very different communities or needs.
29% of ‘town centre’ pubs closed, of which over a fifth remain vacant and 60% have converted to other commercial uses.
Just two pub-restaurants closed across the study areas, and when new openings were taken into account this category actually grew by 8%.
Tables within Appendix 3 show the full breakdown of pubs losses by type, as well as annual decline in terms of percentage figures and actual numbers.
14
Vacant pubs and former pub sites
It was important to consider vacant pubs as this could indicate genuine redundancy rather than failure of the planning system, though LPAs should be wary of intentional undermining by potential developers.
In Barking & Dagenham 25% of closed pubs are currently vacant or demolished without replacement, some for a considerable time. The Westbury Arms closed ten years before being damaged in the 2011 London riots, the shell remaining today. The Angler’s Retreat closed in 2001 and was demolished, remaining undeveloped. The Ship and Anchor shut in 2010 and encountered a ‘suspicious’ blaze following discovery of a cannabis farm by police in 2013 (Metropolitan Police 2013).
Ipswich had eight vacant pubs, the second highest proportion. Given the demand for land, Tower Hamlets had a surprisingly high number of vacant pubs at just over 10%. In Chelmsford just one site is vacant; the White Hart was demolished in 2010 with a new office consent not implemented.
When considered in conjunction with economic and demographic information obtained, it is little surprise that Barking & Dagenham and Ipswich have the highest proportion of vacant pubs as lower incomes are likely to equate to lower spending and therefore less demand, and lower land prices reduce the attractiveness and viability of sites for redevelopment.
Relevant policy in the study areas
Currently, all four authorities covering the study areas have adopted policy that provides some degree of protection for pubs.
For three authorities – Chelmsford, Ipswich and Tower Hamlets – there is no current dedicated pub protection policy at the local level but instead more general guidance on loss of community facilities which includes pubs. All require that evidence be submitted to justify loss. The London Plan with its requirement to bring forward enhanced protection also forms part of the development plan for Barking & Dagenham and Tower Hamlets.
Barking & Dagenham’s current adopted Local Plan makes no specific reference to pubs, but a specific SPD was adopted in 2014. This set out more comprehensive and robust evidence of unviability than had been requested by the Local Plan and also gave more detailed design and heritage guidance where change of use and/or demolition was proposed.
In Chelmsford, the Council had strong and specific policy within their Local Plan between 1997 and 2008. Most significantly, policy prohibited the change of use of any pub within the ‘urban area’ (related to the designated boundary of Chelmsford and South Woodham Ferrers), except where the change was subject to permitted development. Policy for the rural area was also strong, though more flexible where there was demonstration that the pub was “no longer economically viable” (1997: 130). Furthermore, it was ruled prior to adoption that no modification to
15 the policy was necessary with the Council stating that, “If the policies are to be effective (their) position needs to be explicit”, and for rural pubs was “completely in accord with current Government advice” (1996: 14). This policy was removed when a new Development Plan document was adopted in 2008, with pubs instead being addressed through a more general ‘community facility’ policy. The prohibition of change of use of urban pubs ceased, with policy giving scope for change of use providing applicants could demonstrate the pub was not viable, other community uses had been considered and alternative facilities were available in the vicinity.
Additionally, all authorities have policies in place to retain and enhance buildings with heritage value.
Change of use – permitted development
This aspect of the planning system has drawn particular criticism and 28.6% of closures across the study areas resulted in such change of use. Some conversions through permitted development could be considered positive, such as examples of change of use to restaurants increasing local consumer choice, ending long-term vacancies and protecting listed buildings (the Bay Horse in Chelmsford). Others however have been particularly contentious, with active and viable pubs converted to other uses against the will of local people.
Chelmsford (urban) had by far the highest proportion at 62.5% with most (90%) becoming restaurants. Eight in Ipswich were converted, four were active pubs becoming local-format supermarkets for national chains.
While developers can convert to A1/A2/A3 (and temporarily B1) before subsequently applying for residential conversion to evade evidence requirements for pub loss, there were no clear examples within the study areas and just two possible cases such as the Prince Regent in Tower Hamlets which became an estate agency before being demolished and replaced by a residential scheme.
The Rose & Crown in Chelmsford was recently redeveloped for housing, though it had been a restaurant for some time. There is no evidence the change of use was an intentional method of avoiding Chelmsford’s prohibition on urban pub loss in place at the time.
A1 and the growth of local-formal supermarkets
CAMRA (2014) reported that two pubs weekly converted to local-format supermarkets, primarily Tesco Express (53%). Sainsbury’s Local (14%) and the Co-Operative (11%) were the next highest recipients of former-pubs. Tesco have stated they did not target open pubs; a spokesman is quoted as saying, “We are part of the solution, not the problem. We are taking on derelict or vandalised pubs, not those which are still actively trading, and for all sorts of reasons those pubs were not successful” (The Guardian 2012). Similarly the Co-Operative have stated interest in “taking over vacant pubs” (BBC 2012). The evidence I have collected contradicts this; every pub that had been converted to those and other
16 national chains - four in Ipswich, two in Barking & Dagenham and two in Chelmsford - had been in active use until the time of conversion.
One Chelmsford example, The Beehive, applied for an extension in 2014 presented as an enlargement of its dining area (Chelmsford City Council 2014). The pub is a local landmark fronting a junction to two primary routes, sitting on a sizeable plot with a large car park. Anecdotally such sites are particularly attractive for retailers. The application was approved, conforming with the development plan. In April 2015 the pub closed suddenly; the ‘dining room’ to asctually facilitate a Morrisons ‘M Local’ supermarket. Freehold of the site was put on the market with further development potential (Prideview Properties: 2015). The local community were consulted on an expanded pub, not a potential new supermarket. However, after the pub was closed Morrisons then withdrew from the convenience sector meaning the site remains vacant.
Similarly, the Emperor in Ipswich converted to a Tesco Express despite community opposition. The neighbouring Co-Operative subsequently closed leaving no net gain in shopping facilities, no pub and a sizeable vacant unit in a neighbourhood parade. Had this proposal been subject to a full application, it is doubtful that good planning practice would permit a significant quantum of retail undermining existing provision within a designated centre and certainly not the loss of a viable community facility without appropriate evidence or re-provision.
Permitted development has also facilitated what are tantamount to threats to LPAs if full applications for change of use are not successful. For example, in Chelmsford a proposal for a Tesco Express with housing stated, “irrespective of the outcome of this planning application, pub use will cease” (Outridge Ltd. 2010: 7). If nothing else, this example contradicted the publicly stated position of Tesco in regard to targeting active pubs.
Conversion to restaurants and cafes (A3)
A3 conversions have tended to maintain the integrity of the original appearance and fabric of their premises, in contrast to other conversions where new shopfronts have been installed, there are significant internal alterations, or the buildings have been demolished. On the basis of this study, outside London these conversions are likely to have followed a period of closure, although within London there have been examples of immediate conversions such as The Ravenscroft (now an upmarket chicken restaurant) and the Hayfield Tavern (an Indian restaurant, but now seeking further change of use).
Conversion to financial and professional services (A2)
There were few changes of use to A2, just seven in total. Two became betting shops, both in Tower Hamlets. That is not to say this is not a weakness of the planning system; the impact is no less and the principle no different to other changes of use. The removal of betting shops from the A2 use class in 2015 reduces risk of conversion, but with controversial examples of estate agencies replacing pubs elsewhere (Evening Standard 2015) it would appear there is merit in reviewing this form of permitted change.
17
Conversion to offices (B1)
This permitted change was introduced in 2013. No pubs within the study areas have been converted to B1 under permitted development.
Change of use - full applications
Residential development (C3)
This is the largest recipient of pub conversions. Given the high land values in Tower Hamlets it is little surprise that levels exceed other study areas – 55.3% compared to 47.6% across all study areas. So high were numbers that it has skewed upwards overall figures for residential conversion – without Tower Hamlets residential drops from nearly half of all conversions to a third (33.3%). ‘Community locals’ are most prone to this change.
In Chelmsford three pubs, all ‘community locals’, converted to purely residential schemes. Opposition was minimal and it could be considered that redevelopment was positive for their respective areas. The New Barn, according to its officer report, received no objections to loss, was becoming derelict and was to provide purely affordable housing which was in greatest need. That said, the report noted it was inconclusive whether continued pub use was unviable (2014a: 4). The Three Stars had been vacant for two years and evidence of marketing as a pub and other community uses was provided; the Council was actually the freeholder. Nine representations cited parking and other concerns, none to pub loss (2014b: 6). The final pub, The Cherry Tree, is discussed in the evidence section. Two further Chelmsford pubs became mixed-use schemes including residential and are also discussed subsequently.
In the rural area, seven converted to residential. Three – the Cock Inn in Boreham, the Victoria in Writtle and The White Horse in Pleshey – were consented without controversy and appropriate evidence of unviability had been submitted. The Spread Eagle in Margaretting had been destroyed by fire, loss further supported by two other pubs serving the village. All of these could be considered to have been appropriately considered and genuinely redundant. The Star in Good Easter was recommended for refusal as it contravened the borough’s policy protecting pubs, but Committee members accepted evidence of unviability and approved the scheme (2005: 4).
More contentious were the Bell in Little Waltham and The Green Man at Howe Street. The former had an application permitted for conversion of its pool room and loss of car parking space as it retained pub use, in line with policy. Subsequently the rest of the pub was converted. The latter had unauthorised works carried out for partial change of use to residential and the remainder into a café/farm facility for private hire. It briefly opened to the public for the Tour de France which passed through in 2014. Locals objected to the loss of the pub facility in the submitted application. However, the officer’s report referred to the building still being a community use (2014 d: 4), though this is questionable given the nature of the proposed business. There was no reference to continued viability of the pub, and the retrospective application was approved (though it
18 remains closed at the time of writing). It has been reported that the site has been purchased with intention to convert back to a pub (Walker 2015).
In Ipswich, five pubs converted to residential without objection and had been apparently genuinely vacant in locations where alternatives were nearby. A further two pubs, the Racecourse (Tesco Express with residential above) and John Bull (three A5 hot food takeaway units with a self-contained residential unit) converted but no objections were forthcoming.
Other uses
Other changes of use subject to full applications have seen three pubs in Ipswich become alternative community facilities (one is now a popular Children’s Centre). Two town centre pubs, one in each of Barking and Dagenham, facilitated major redevelopment to provide improved social infrastructure. In Dagenham a new central library was created along with a residential scheme, and in Barking a new leisure centre as part of the town centre regeneration programme. In Tower Hamlets, one pub was part of a major hospital expansion programme. Generally, few pubs appear to change to uses outside of ‘A’-uses or residential.
Heritage
Many pubs are heritage assets or form part of conservation areas, which means there are additional policy constraints for applicants to address. In theory, this suggests such pubs should be less prone to change. In Chelmsford almost half of pubs open on 1st January 2000 (47.7%) were either locally or statutorily designated as heritage assets. This was the highest proportion out of the study areas, and may partly explain why the city has lost much fewer pubs than other study areas.
However, while a lower proportion of listed pubs close overall than those not listed, the data is inconclusive. In Tower Hamlets the loss of listed pubs was 37.8% compared to the 61.5% for non-listed pubs, but in Ipswich closures of listed pubs were broadly in line with the overall total. In Barking & Dagenham listed pubs were only slightly lower than overall figures and in the rural area they exceeded the rate of non-listed pubs.
Application of policy
With the London Plan calling for boroughs to bring forward pub protection policies, it has been useful to look at the success of strong policy where it has existed and how robustly policies more generally are being applied.
The 1997 Chelmsford Borough Local Plan saw just one urban change of use departing from policy. The Army & Navy, a popular music venue and the only pub at the time to host LGBT events, was replaced by a ‘sports’ pub before being demolished for a mixed use development. The officer’s report though was pragmatic, accepting the pub represented an inefficient use of land and had been in a poor state of repair. On balance, considering the arts use had ceased, the scheme brought benefits not least safety and traffic movement improvements and
19 was to deliver a new hotel, homes and commercial space with potential for pub re- provision. However, it could be argued that the demise of the pub and its state of repair had been exaggerated by its owner. It served an important function as a space for local bands and emerging national acts. Given the location along an arterial road some way outside of the town centre it was unsurprising that the re- launch failed. The accusation that freeholders intentionally run pubs down to satisfy requirements of unviability also occurs in other cases.
As well as manipulation of evidence, there appear to be examples of planning authorities themselves undermining pubs by not applying policies correctly. At the Marsham Arms in Chelmsford, the officer’s report undermines the Council’s policy on pubs stating that the existence of permitted development had a ‘material bearing on how Policy DC37 could be applied’. The only pub serving a large residential neighbourhood, an application was submitted for its demolition and the construction of a Tesco Express and housing with much objection. A petition with 814 signatures was submitted along with many written objections. Although many opposed the supermarket on the basis of undermining existing convenience stores, others objected to pub loss. The petition stated it had “several facilities such as function room and garden that make it attractive to use. Suggestion that better advertisement of the public house would benefit the viability of the business”. The officer’s report responded with “Punch Taverns sold the site on the basis that it was not a viable business”. It was suggested the pub was well-used despite the applicant’s evidence which argued the pub did not serve a genuine community role as it was situated in an urban area in which “community services are abundant” (2011: 4). The planning statement said that if the scheme was not consented, the pub would be boarded up until “a planning solution to the future use of the site can be agreed”. The officer’s report noted that “at any time, and without the need for planning permission, the public house is permitted to be converted to a unit operating as a shop, financial/professional service or restaurant/cafe”. While this further evidences how permitted development can undermine policy, the application being put forward was not permitted development and therefore the Council perhaps should have been more stringent in applying Policy DC37. On the evidence submitted, it is also questionable as to whether any real effort was actually made to continue the pub use. The application was recommended for approval, granted at committee.
To further critique the Marsham Arms decision, other authorities have similar policies which have been applied as drafted regardless of permitted development risk. This principle was upheld by an Inspector in Tower Hamlets who ruled that a proposal had not demonstrated compliance with policy requiring marketing evidence. The pub in question, The Sebright Arms, is now thriving providing a facility for live music, contradicting the applicant’s claim there was “no market for such an opportunity” (The Planning Inspectorate 2010: 5). It demonstrates that in the hands of operators that want to run pubs as pubs, they can be successful even when applicants suggest otherwise.
A further challenge for planners is inaccurate or false evidence put before them. For example, a withdrawn application for the Old Duke of Cambridge in Tower Hamlets submitted evidence that was inaccurate and marketing evidence didn’t match online records (now removed). The applicant stated there was no interest
20 in the property as a pub despite offering very low rents, however the apparent asking rent was higher than stated and well above local comparators. Information on alternative pubs in the vicinity listed a number that had long since closed, some as far back as twelve years previous. For the Cherry Tree in Chelmsford, the officer explicitly stated that evidence presented could have been manipulated but that it had to be accepted at “face value”. The site had been identified as a site suitable for housing in the Council’s Revised Urban Capacity Study by the time a full application was decided in 2010 (2004: 36). However, the pub had been vacant since 2002 and the principle of redevelopment accepted via an earlier outline application. In line with requirements, the applicant had submitted information from an expert witness stating the pub required significant works rendering it unviable, and previous trade was not at a level at which a living could be provided. However, the officer’s report critiques arguments used by the expert witness, stating, “It is considered likely that the premises have been allowed to fall into disrepair to assist the argument for demolition and redevelopment, however, this is not a planning consideration and the report is accepted on its face value”. A number of comments in the same vein continue such as suggesting previous management had not evolved the pub to keep pace with modern requirements, challenging the suggestion that the pub wasn’t viable as people preferred to visit town centre pubs. Indeed, to support the officer’s opinion there remain successful pubs of a similar nature in the local area. The officer concluded though refusal on the basis of the loss of the public house “would be difficult to substantiate” (2007: 5).
Examples exist where LPAs have disputed evidence of unviability and been vindicated through subsequent success in continued pub use. Just outside the Chelmsford study area is The Norton, where permission for conversion to residential was refused and upheld at appeal. The applicant had argued the pub was not viable, but the Inspector ruled that its loss would have a “permanent and materially harmful effect on community life”, and also that the applicant had not demonstrated that the pub “cannot be made viable” (The Planning Inspectorate 2008: 4). Since 2009 the pub has been in the hands of a community co-operative which was amongst the country’s first and still open today.
Another means of manipulating and undermining requirements is the concept of the ‘trojan horse’. This has been used to circumvent evidence requirements for loss of facilities by submitting applications suggesting re-provision of pub space. Generally though there is no intention to actually deliver a pub, fundamentally because the space is too small. Submitted plans often show no bar area, toilets or other ancillary spaces that are a fundamental requirement for any pub. After some period of vacancy a change of use application will be submitted for the vacant pub, by now with sufficient evidence that it cannot be let. There are examples of this in Tower Hamlets with others likely to come forward. The Brewery Tap was located on a busy highway within a designated neighbourhood town centre adjoining the Troxy events venue. A 2010 application sought extension and conversion of the upstairs living accommodation to create eight residential units, with ‘retention’ of the pub. Objections, including from the Troxy, cited concerns as of future noise complaints from neighbours which could jeopardise their business (London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2011: 3). Although pub protection policy had been current at the time of the decision and was relevant given that the proposal
21 involved a partial loss of the pub (reduced floorspace and ancillary living accommodation), no reference was made in the delegated report. The proposal was approved and the pub closed to enable works to commence. After the ‘vacancy’ of the ‘pub’ a further application in 2013 attempted to convert the ground floor space to a further residential unit, met with strong objection from the Troxy and CAMRA. A key objection related to the validity of marketing evidence to demonstrate lack of interest, it being noted the asking price being far in excess of market rates. The Troxy indicated that had the rent or purchase price been realistic they would have considered taking the pub themselves (London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2011: 3). The application was refused due to loss of active commercial frontage within a designated town centre but neither is the venue a pub – it is in A1 use through permitted development.
On the basis of the areas studied it would appear that where strong policy exists there are better controls through the planning system to manage loss, and there are fewer pub losses perhaps because there is greater risk for developers. This is demonstrated by Chelmsford with its previously policy, but also Barking & Dagenham where there was no particular policy until more recently and no change of use applications appear to have been submitted since.
Population and cultural factors
Religion and personal choice is slightly outside of the remit of the planning system, nonetheless in Tower Hamlets and to a lesser extent Barking & Dagenham applicants have used a suggested increase in population not drinking for religious reasons (predominantly citing Muslims) as justification for losing pubs.
The changing nature of Barking’s population over recent years is reflected in the areas pubs; two have become event spaces for the Romanian community, one an independent local supermarket for the African community, one a mosque and a further application to convert to a place of worship for the Islamic community was refused. Similarly in Tower Hamlets which has seen waves of migrant communities pass through, a number of pubs had closed in the decades prior to this study.
More recently though arguments about population change can be considered misleading. Utilising census data it can be shown that the Muslim population of Tower Hamlets was large towards the start of the study period (36.4% of the population in 2001) and grew by 16,300 persons by 2011. However, as a crude indicator (it must be noted that there are elements of a number of religions that do not drink or would not visit a pub due to the association with alcohol) the non- Muslim population grew by 41,679 persons over the same period – a rise of over a third. Even in Barking & Dagenham where the Muslim population grew substantially between 2001 and 2011 (from 7,148 to 25,520 persons and from 4.4% to 13.7% of the population), the non-Muslim population had a marginal increase of 2.3%. This suggests claims that pubs are no longer required due to changing demographics are not accurate as the potential market has been growing while the number of pubs has been shrinking. It should also be noted that not drinking alcohol need not be a barrier to using and enjoying pubs as community facilities, meeting places and event spaces.
22
Community value
A consideration of this study is whether pubs have particular social value that makes them worthy of particular protection. Research collected suggests that they do and to support this practical examples of the community value of pubs have been identified.
In Tower Hamlets, seven pubs have been designated as ACVs – the Bancroft Arms in Mile End, the Duke of Wellington in Aldgate (subject to a contentious application at the time of nomination), the Ferry House on the Isle of Dogs, the Joiners Arms on Hackney Road (a popular LGBT venue that had been closed), the Queen’s Head in Limehouse, Turner’s Old Star in Wapping and the Widow’s Son on Devons Road (which had also been closed for a time and had an application for development within its curtilage). ACV applications had also been submitted and refused on a further two pubs – the Eleanor Arms in Bow and the Steamship in Blackwall. The strength of community feeling when pubs are threatened such as the Duke of Wellington and other examples cited also demonstrates social value in itself. A risk of leaving this determination outside of the planning system is trusting communities to be proactive in designating pubs and other facilities, as it relies on awareness and community capacity to take forward such measures.
If policies adopted by local authorities on protecting pubs are deemed to be weak or silent on offering protection to pubs, another avenue at the disposal of local residents is the opportunity through the Localism Act to enhance policies through neighbourhood planning. One of the first areas in the country to attempt this is Kentish Town in Camden which consulted on its draft plan earlier in 2015 (Carrier, 2015). It did this by seeking to list all pubs within the defined boundary as ACVs, though actual policy requirements could be introduced provided they do not conflict with the area’s Development Plan. However, the process of initiating neighbourhood planning forum and areas and getting approved can be lengthy, as would the process of adopting a Neighbourhood Plan. Again neighbourhood planning relies on community capacity, so there is a question as to whether some communities have the ability to partake in the process which leaves the potential for pubs to be protected to a greater extent in more prosperous neighbourhoods than those with lower social capital and community capacity.
An argument against offering specific protection to pubs through the planning system is that other uses assist communities but have also been in decline, such as post offices, local shops, even phone boxes. Part of the reason though is modern technology, and on this basis pubs are to an extent immune. Increasingly there are online shopping deliveries, post office functions can be performed online and there are few people without mobile telephones. Pubs are different because physical interaction between humans cannot be done online, neither can the enjoyment of live music, partaking in sports and other such activities offered. Especially in inner London and rural communities, facilities might be limited or difficult to book but pubs offer informal and spontaneous meeting space in that one can pull up a few chairs and tables and get underway. In Ipswich, the local MP runs informal surgeries in pubs across the town, and also in Ipswich the Brewery Tap was used to host a consultation for a major new development. In
23
Chelmsford, a violin group meets and practises at the United Brethren, the Queen’s Head hosts the Beard Club (Sturdy 2015) and the Woolpack hosts lectures. Many pubs cater for booked events through function rooms, such as private parties, celebrations, weddings, wakes and others besides. On top, there are a variety of other open events offered such as quiz evenings and psychic nights.
Beer gardens are valued by communities and loss appeared to be the primary objection in the recent case of the Duke of Wellington in Aldgate which was unanimously refused by Committee. In inner-city areas in particular there may be a lack of open space, and many people’s homes may not have external amenity space. Therefore, beer gardens provide a valued means of escape.
Another measure of how pubs can demonstrate community value is the range of sports supported. Across the study areas numerous pubs, overwhelmingly ‘community locals’, have their own football or rugby teams and also directly host sports such as darts and pool for which there are local leagues. They also provide environments in which people can watch televised sport that is unavailable on free-to-watch television at home.
A further offer from pubs which is challenging for other uses to realistically provide is live music. There are many pubs within the study areas that offer this, either for light entertainment purposes (such as covers bands), as part of a national circuit (hosting ticketed gigs for mostly newer or smaller signed acts) or as a space for new and amateur artists to practice and perform (such as ‘open-mic’ nights). Other entertainment arts are catered for in a similar fashion, such as comedy. The Golden Fleece in Chelmsford hosts the ‘Bay Day’ festival in its rear garden with a small stage set up. There has been increasing concern recently that, along with pubs, live music venues have been in decline and the Mayor of London committed to investigate the impact by setting up a Taskforce (Music Venue Trust 2015). Other venues, such as cafes and restaurants, tend not to be able to support the ‘art’ of music, the incubation of emerging artists and the opportunity for local and amateur acts to perform. Therefore, it is not considered to be realistic that venues other than pubs are capable of supporting local-scale live music in the same way, particularly away from larger urban areas where there is not the population to support large dedicated music venues or attract artists of larger stature.
The effect on communities of pub closure
It is difficult to properly quantify the full long-term impact on communities when a pub closes without an appropriate study over a number of years. Where alternative pubs exist in close proximity to a closed pub it is likely that some former patrons would migrate to other pubs, though it is probable that some social networks will be broken.
There are examples of where the community have taken action to ensure that their local pub reopens. This in itself is an indicator of the value of pubs to the community. For example a ‘crowdfunding’ campaign is underway in the small village of Somersham in Suffolk with the issue of bonds to fund the re-opening of the village’s only pub (Save the Duke, 2015).
24
There are anecdotal suggestions that many people simply go out less, and drink more at home in isolation. However, a sociological study of much greater depth would be required to fully assess the impact on individuals and communities from the loss of the local pub, especially where there is no other facility in reasonable proximity.
Creation of new pubs
Creating new facilities is an aspect of the planning system that appears to be largely overlooked by pub campaigners. This is particularly the case outside of town centres, in other words the very locations most likely to fulfil a function as a community facility. A community might have lost their public house yet to seek to replace it, perhaps within a vacant shop unit within a neighbourhood parade or other vacant premises, would not accord with the adopted development plan of Tower Hamlets and would be problematic in Ipswich. There is scope within the policies of Barking & Dagenham and Chelmsford for out-of-town-centre pubs to emerge, subject to demonstration that they would not harm the amenity of surrounding residents.
An emerging form is the ‘micro-pub’, which is a fast-growing movement. There are now 111 across the UK including one in Chelmsford. These are a return to a traditional kind of pub where the focus is on ‘conversation’, and this point is set out in the definition of micro-pubs by the Micropub Association (2015). They tend not to have entertainment or serve food, and as the name implies they occupy small units such as former shops. This makes them conducive to being delivered in locations such as local shopping parades, and potentially offer a solution to communities that have lost pubs. As well as offering a community meeting place they tend to focus on the sale of brews from local and small-scale producers, therefore positively impacting local economies; research from the Federation of Small Businesses suggests that of every one pound spent on local products 63p stays in the local community, as opposed to 40p for large companies. (FSB, 2013). Where they are not as effective as traditional community pubs in demonstrating community value is an inability to offer function rooms, and outdoor space may be extremely limited if any exists at all. On the other hand, such businesses are challenging the notion put forward by CAMRA and others that the small space remaining at so-called ‘trojan horse’ sites cannot be viable for continued use as pubs, though of course realistic market rents need to be achieved.
Along similar lines, ‘tap-rooms’ (focused on brews produced in-house or showcasing a range of local and specialist brews) are also growing and examples exist in the study areas. While much larger than micro-pubs, they also tend not to reflect the architectural typology of traditional pubs. For example, The Ale House in Chelmsford and Mother Kelly’s in Bethnal Green are inside railway arches and the Swan at Hackney Wick in former industrial premises. They are though capable of handling traditional pub functions such as hosting events and live music. A challenge therefore is for the planning system to react to innovation and support such uses where appropriate. For example, officers in Havering recommended the borough’s first micro-pub for approval. It was at the edge of,
25 but within, a designated town centre. However, it was called in to Committee by members and refused on questionable grounds of no parking, suggesting most patrons would drive and park in surrounding residential streets (this was a strange concept given that drinking and driving is not recommended), and noise impacts on surrounding residential areas despite being opposite a petrol station with longer opening hours (Havering, 2015). The decision was successfully appealed.
Diversification of pubs
The supplementary policy guidance adopted by Barking & Dagenham, Cambridge and Waltham Forest requests evidence that pubs have sought to diversify their business. This would appear to be a reasonable approach based on evidence from the study areas. In the rural areas this consideration is particularly important as pubs tend to lack the local catchment of their urban counterparts, and passing trade can be minimal. Therefore, additional draws are required to sustain the business. A strong food offer is the primary mechanism, which nearly all pubs within the rural area provide to the extent that some are known more for food. A number of other initiatives can also be found in the rural such as two pubs (The Fox and Goose at Highwood and The Hare at Roxwell) having bakeries and tea rooms attached, the Cricketers in Danbury has a craft centre, and a few pubs offer bed and breakfast accommodation. In urban areas food is also important and some pubs in Tower Hamlets, for example The Culpepper, have become ‘gastro- pubs’. However, there is also criticism of such venues questioning the extent to which they actually remain pubs.
A pub on the Isle of Dogs, the Great Eastern, has converted its ancillary living space into a backpacker’s hostel and cited in the corresponding planning application how this was essential to ensure the viability and continued operation of the pub. While not strictly according with policy on locations for short-term accommodation, it can be seen that in policy terms there is sometimes conflict between not departing from the adopted Local Plan and safeguarding community facilities which is also promoted through the NPPF, London Plan and Local Plan.
In the Chelmsford urban area though a number of pubs, particularly community- locals and edge-of-centre community pubs, have no significant food offer. This perhaps demonstrates that when run properly as pubs rather than as a property investment pubs can continue to thrive even where there is close competition.
26
Conclusions & recommendations
Overview
The data collected provides evidence and examples to support the concerns cited in the Introduction and Background relating to the planning system’s contribution to the decline of pubs, and suggests pubs do have particular social value that makes them worth protecting. While relatively few pubs within the study areas have been formally designated as ACVs their community value is established in policy such as the Localism Act and in planning practice through the NPPF and adopted local policies, with practical examples cited through this research.
In terms of weaknesses within the planning system, the research suggests contribution to an unnecessary decline of pubs beyond what might be expected from genuine market changes. That said, it must also be accepted that there are pubs which have become genuinely redundant in which case alternative use must be welcomed. This is evidenced firstly where there has been genuine long-term vacancy with robust evidence provided and lack of community objection, and secondly where pubs remain vacant long-term with no development proposals coming forward.
A common factor undermining policies on protecting pubs, limiting LPA’s ability to control development and to prevent communities commenting has been permitted development. Recent amendments supporting pubs nominated as ACVs partially rectifies this, but assumes knowledge and capacity exists within communities to be proactive. The Wandsworth approach of protecting pubs via ‘Article 4’ directions is potentially more effective, but is time-consuming to prepare and based on this research also requires robust policies to be in place to be effective.
Suitable examples of strong policies can be found in a growing number of areas, such as Cambridge (2012: 19-23), Waltham Forest (2015: 14-15), Lambeth and Brent. All require extensive marketing; Cambridge and Waltham Forest at an independently agreed asking price along with three year’s audited accounts and evidence of attempted diversification. Waltham Forest also look at the impact on the vitality and viability of surrounding town centres or parades (2015: 16), a pertinent consideration given the example of the Emperor in Ipswich. This research provides further justification to these requirements, because unrealistically high asking prices and cases of supposed unviability being shown to be inaccurate were found. It also suggests that LPAs have been culpable in giving consents to applicants where evidence of unviability has been weak, inaccurate or non-existent, adopted policy has been deviated from without proper justification, and material concerns raised have not been addressed. On that basis, it is not always the planning system in itself that has contributed to the decline of pubs as mechanisms at the disposal of LPAs to protect from unnecessary loss have not been fully utilised. Enhancing evidence requirements would mitigate this risk by producing better information for scrutiny.
LPAs bringing forward such policies might additionally consider further aspects that emerged in this research and these are outlined within the recommendations.
27
However, new policies take time to prepare and adopt and rely on the resources and will of LPAs and their elected Members to bring forward. That said, the evidence justifies authorities bringing forward enhanced pub protection policy.
It also supports the removal of pubs from the A4 use class or to cease any permitted development from A4, primarily though demonstration of the negative impact of the GPDO by facilitating what might be termed a ‘blackmail tool’ to threat to invoke permitted development on sites if applications are not consented. While some changes of use under permitted development were found to be positive, this does not outweigh the impact of those that were not. Should all pubs be subject to full applications, the end result of positive changes of use would probably be the same but the loss of viable pubs would be minimised.
Commonly used justifications for the decline of pubs, such as localised demographic changes, the smoking ban and the recent recession have also been challenged because the data collected shows high rates of closure before these events, and the potential market for pubs has been growing not declining.
Although in itself the planning system cannot make judgements based on ownership of pubs, evidence suggests that in the right hands and with appropriate diversification, they can thrive and enhance their community role. For example, there are criticisms of ownership models and accusations that ‘pubcos’ are more like property speculators and developers than pub companies. While the Institute of Economic Affairs state, “There is little evidence that pubs owned by PubCos have been closing permanently at a faster rate than those in the rest of the sector (Snowden 2014: 8), this study found evidence challenging this view. In Chelmsford fifteen pubs that closed were owned by large ‘pubcos’ and the remaining two had no ownership data available having closed early in the study period. No current independent pubs in Chelmsford have closed or show signs of closing imminently. In Ipswich, ownership data was less comprehensive but all seventeen closed pubs for which data had been available (63% of all closed pubs) had belonged to ‘pubcos’. LPAs would, therefore, be encouraged to draft policies along similar lines to those introduced by Cambridge, demanding demonstration that new ways of attracting customers have been fully explored and that there are not restrictive covenants attached to pubs which manipulate unviability by forcing to tenants to purchase only from particular suppliers at inflated prices.
Land prices in London and the south-east continue to rise and increased housing targets in Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham and Chelmsford especially are likely to put further pressure on pubs. Therefore in the short term, without significant legislative and policy amendments within the planning system beyond those recently implemented, it seems likely that there will be further declines in pub numbers.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this research and the evidence presented, a number of recommendations can be deduced and these are set out below:
National legislative or policy recommendations
28
1. That the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) be reviewed to remove pubs from the A4 use class; there is a compelling case for them to be considered as a ‘Sui Generis’ use. The unique and wide-ranging characteristics of pubs would justify and warrant such a move, which in turn would remove permitted development rights regardless of whether or not the pub has been designated an ACV. Historic precedent for this approach exists as pubs were originally outside of defined use classes. For consistency and in considering the sometimes questionable and subjective distinction between pubs and bars, there is merit in all drinking establishments becoming ‘Sui Generis’. Especially for late-night bars and those bars and pubs with entertainment, this would also bring consistency with the use class position on nightclubs.
2. If Recommendation 1 is not enacted, that permitted development rights allowing change of use are removed from the A4 use class regardless of ACV status. It is clear from the evidence provided that permitted development rights have created a mechanism through which developers can evade or undermine local policy requirements on the loss of pubs as community facilities by converting pubs to other uses in advance of further redevelopment, or even demolishing them. Especially outside of London, although not exclusively, viable pubs have been converted to other uses against the will of local people without proper consideration through the planning system.
Recommendations for London Borough of Tower Hamlets
1. That planning policies be enhanced and strengthened to ensure that where the loss of a public house is proposed the applicant must more robustly demonstrate genuinely unviability. Evidence requirements for demonstration of unviability should include: Showing that different methods of business practice have been attempted in order to demonstrate a genuine and proactive will to operate the pub as a going concern (as a pub) rather than as a means of achieving profit by converting to a higher value landuse. Showing that the pub has been offered free-of-tie and restrictive covenant. Many pubs operate under unique ‘tied’ operating models compared to other uses whereby their choice of supplier and/or product range is limited, and the cost of products is inflated compared to what would be available on the open wholesale market. This in turn means that the pub’s ability to meet the needs of their customers can be limited, and can be used as a mechanism to manipulate the unviability of pubs. Certainly, tied ownership is a deterrent to potential tenants or purchasers who could otherwise run pubs successfully. Showing that there has been genuine attempts to let or sell the pub for A4 use at local market rates. Such a requirement would ensure that, for example, the pub is not vacant purely as a result of unreasonable rent increases or asking prices set to deter interest from genuine potential pub operators.
29
Lengthening periods for which pubs must have been vacant and marketed before change of use will be considered. It is recommended that the minimum period for attempting to let or sell the property as a pub is 12 months. As pubs are recognised as valuable facilities for the wellbeing of local communities, and given the need to provide community facilities to service a growing population, if it is demonstrated that the pub is genuinely unviable it is recommended that for a further 12 month period the applicant must attempt to let or sell the property for an alternative community use at a realistic price. requesting independently verified marketing evidence showing that the pub has been actively marketed through appropriate and relevant publications and websites. It is recommended that copies of such marketing or weblinks are made available for scrutiny, along with examples of any direct approaches made to recognised pub operators and any feedback received from such approaches or viewings.
Evidence from the study areas suggests that where specific pub protection policies have existed, there is more effective control over pub losses. It would be recommended on that basis that Tower Hamlets reviews their policies at the next opportunity and brings forward specific pub protection policies which address the considerations outlined above.
2. If the GPDO is not further amended to remove permitted development from pubs, it is recommended that the Council takes action locally. While this could include bringing forward Article 4 directions, the same outcome could be achieved much more quickly through the designation of pubs as Assets of Community Value. While the Council is unable to instigate such designation itself, it could actively promote the benefits of ACVs (which need not be restricted just to pubs) and encourage the community to nominate facilities that are of value to them. The Council should also ensure that the process for nomination is clearly set out and is easily understandable. The benefit of this approach is that where pubs are nominated and designated it provides further evidence of genuine community value which can help with the decision-making process where applications concerning pubs are received. As such, the Council should look favourably on ACV applications submitted and where such nominations are refused or overturned that clear and concise reasoning and justifications are provided to applicants so as to aid any re-nomination.
3. It is recommended that the Council amends its planning policies to better facilitate new models of pubs coming forward and to broaden the locations in which proposals might be acceptable. For example, the growing movement of ‘micro-pubs’ is conducive to being delivered outside of main town centres without harming surrounding residential amenity, so policies could be drafted or amended to facilitate such uses in such locations as appropriate. Currently, proposals for new pubs outside of town centres would not be policy-compliant even though where pubs exist in such locations they tend to provide most community benefit. Furthermore, should a pub outside of a town centre be lost to redevelopment under current policies it would not be possible to provide a nearby replacement.
30
4. Where redevelopment of pubs is proposed with re-provision of A4 use, it is recommended that where applications are approved or recommended for approval that conditions are added to secure A4 use (by removing permitted development). It should also be ensured that space allocated for pub use is sufficient to implement bar areas, seating, storage and toilets at a minimum in order to ensure that from the outset there is genuine potential for the re-provided space to be operated as a pub rather than an intentional pre-cursor to subsequent change of use.
5. That LPAs consider enhancing the protection of pubs on heritage ground through considering additions to their respective Local Lists, or support nomination of additional pubs to Historic England for statutory designation.
31
Bibliography
Beacham, R. 2012, Is there a trend for pubs being turned into supermarkets?. The Essex Chronicle [Online] 6th June. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Blunden, M. 2015, St John’s Wood pub The Star becomes estate agency despite protection order. The Evening Standard [Online] 13th April. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Brown, M. 2014, Pubs Matter: Proposed changes to the General Permitted Development Order to protect public houses, UK: Campaign for Real Ale
Cambridge City Council 2012, Interim Planning Policy Guidance on the Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge, Cambridge
Campaign for Real Ale 2014 a., Communities & Local Government Select Committee – Community Rights, A Response from CAMRA, The Campaign for Real Ale, UK.
Campaign for Real Ale 2014 b., CAMRA research shows expanding supermarket chains are calling last orders on hundreds of pubs [press release] 8th February 2013. [Accessed 29th July 2015]. Available at < http://www.camra.org.uk/press- releases >
Campaign for Real Ale 2015. CAMRA urges swift action to stop pubs closing [press release] 23rd January 2015. [Accessed 29th July 2015]. Available at:
Campaign for Real Ale, UK Pub Guide [Online] [Accessed various dates between 1st April – 8th August 2015] Available from
Carrier, D. 2015 Blanket protection for pubs included in neighbourhood plan for Kentish Town. Camden New Journal [Online] 8th August. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Chelmsford Borough Council 1996, Chelmsford Borough Local Plan Statement of Decisions on Objections to the Proposed Modifications placed on deposit in November 1995, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 1997, Chelmsford Borough Local Plan, Chelmsford
32
Chelmsford Borough Council 2004 Chelmsford Revised Urban Capacity Study Final Report August 2004 Appendix B: Schedules of Capacity Study Estimates, Sites and Capacities and Assessments, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2005 05/00408/FUL Full Application The Star Public House The Endway Mill Road Good Easter Chelmsford Essex CM1 4RS, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2007 Planning Committee Item 10, 07/00617/OUT Outline Application, Cherry Tree Public House Cherry Garden Lane Chelmsford Essex CM2 0BL 10th July 2007, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2008, Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2009, Decision made by the Director of Sustainable Communities - 09/01212/FUL Full Application, 76 Victoria Road Writtle Chelmsford Essex CM1 3PA, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2010 10/01707/FUL Full Application Marsham Arms 107 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2RY 26th December 2010, Chelmsford
Chelmsford Borough Council 2011 Planning Committee Item Item 4, 10/01707/FUL Full Application Marsham Arms 107 Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2RY 11th January 2011, Chelmsford
Chelmsford City Council 2012, Officer Report - 12/01226/FUL Full Application, White Horse Pleshey Chelmsford Essex CM3 1HA, Chelmsford
Chelmsford City Council 2014 a., Planning Committee Item 7, 13/00694/FUL Full Application, The New Barn Kings Road Chelmsford CM1 4HP, 17th September 2013, Chelmsford
Chelmsford City Council 2014 b., Planning Committee Item 13 14/01720/FUL Full Application The Three Stars 10 Trent Road Chelmsford Essex CM1 2LQ, 16th December 2014, Chelmsford
Chelmsford City Council 2014 c., Decision made by the Director of Sustainable Communities - 14/01387/FUL Full Application, The Cock Inn Main Road Boreham Chelmsford Essex, Chelmsford
Chelmsford City Council 2014 d., Decision made by the Director of Sustainable Communities - 14/01170/FUL Full Application, The Green Man Main Road Howe Street Chelmsford Essex CM3 1BG, Chelmsford
Clark, P. 1983, The English Alehouse – A Social History 1200-1830, Longman Group
33
Clarke, B. 2012, “The poor man’s club”: The Middle Classes, the Public House, and the Idea of Community in the Nineteen-Thirties, Mosaic Volume 45 Number 2, June
Clarke, T. 2015, The Future Role of the Planning System in Protecting Public Houses as Community Assets, University of Westminster
Davis, M. 2015, Essex Beardsmen club descend on Queen's head in Chelmsford chinwag. The Hackney Citizen [Online] 26th March. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Department for Communities & Local Government 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, London: HMSO
Federation of Small Businesses 2013. FSB report reveals the power of small businesses in the local economy [press release] 8th July 2013. [Accessed 29th July 2015] Available at
GVA Humberts Leisure 2012, Cambridge Public House Study – Final Report, UK Hansard 2015, House of Commons debates. Column 965 – Column 974 12th February 2015. [Accessed 29th July 2015]. Available at:
Hopkins, K. 2015. English pubs deemed important to communities to be protected by law. The Guardian [Online] 26th January 2015. [Accessed 29th July 2015]. Available at:
Ipswich Borough Council 1997, Ipswich Local Plan, Ipswich
Ipswich Borough Council 2011, Planning & Development Control Committee 13th May 2009 PD.08.30 Item 9, Ipswich
Ipswich Borough Council 2011, Core Strategy & Policies Development Plan Document, Ipswich
Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum 2015, The draft Kentish Town Neighbourhood Plan Policies, London
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 1996, Barking & Dagenham Unitary Development Plan, London
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2010, Planning for the future of Barking & Dagenham – Core Strategy, London
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2011, Planning for the future of Barking & Dagenham – Borough Wide Development Plan Policies Development Plan Document, London
34
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 2014, Last Orders? Preserving Public Houses Supplementary Planning Document, London
London Borough of Camden 2015, Draft Camden Local Plan – Pubs, London
London Borough of Havering 2015, Meeting of Regulatory Services Committee, Thursday, 14th May, 2015 7.30 pm (Item 255.) P0235.15 - 1B SUNNYSIDE GARDENS, UPMINSTER, London
London Borough of Lambeth 2013, Public Houses in Lambeth November 2013, Lambeth Local Plan, London
London Borough of Lewisham 2012, Overview and Scrutiny – Preserving Local Pubs, Sustainable Development Select Committee, London
London Borough of Lewisham 2012, Pubs in Lewisham: An evidence base study, London
London Borough of Lewisham 2014, Sustainable Development Select Committee – Preserving public houses and community assets of value, London
London Borough of Southwark 2015, Draft Policy in The New Southwark Local Plan, London
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 1998, Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, London
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2007, Interim Planning Guidance, Core Strategy and Development Control Plan, London
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2010, Delegated Report – PA/10/02225 30th November 2010, London
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2013, Managing Development Document Development Plan Document, London
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2014, Delegated Report – PA/13/03110 12th March 2014, London
London Borough of Waltham Forest 2014, Draft Public Houses Supplementary Planning Document, London
London Borough of Wandsworth 2015, Paper no. 15-224 Wandsworth Borough Council Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 16th June 2015 Executive – 29th June 2015 Report by the Director of Housing and Community Services on the implementation of Article 4 Directions for public houses and bars in relation to the Town Centre Uses Supplementary Planning Document, London
35
London Pubology [Online] [Accessed various dates between 1st April – 8th August 2015] Available from
Mayor of London 2004, The London Plan, London: Greater London Authority
Mayor of London 2011, The London Plan – Spatial development strategy for London, Greater London Authority, London: Greater London Authority
Mayor of London 2014, Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan, Intend to Publish Version for SLS CLG, 15 Dec, London: Greater London Authority
Mayor of London 2015, The London Plan – The spatial development strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011, London: Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police, 2015. Ship and Anchor pub housed cannabis factory [press release] 19th June 2013. [Accessed 29th July 2015]. Available at:
Micropub Association 2015. [Online] [Accessed 29th July 2015] Available at
Mid Suffolk District Council 2004, Retention of Shops, Post Offices and Public Houses in Villages, Needham Market
Muir, R 2012, Pubs and Places – The social value of community pubs 2nd Edition, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research
Music Venue Trust, 2015. CAMRA urges swift action to stop pubs closing [press release] 13th June 2015. [Accessed 29th July 2015] Available at:
Mutch, A. 2010, Improving the public house in Britain, 1920-40: Sir Sydney Neville and ‘social work’, Business History 52:4, Nottingham Trent University
O’Connell, S AM 2013, Keeping Local. How to save London's Pubs as community resources, London: London Assembly Conservative Group, Greater London Authority
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2005, Circular 03/2005, Changes of Use of Buildings and Land, London: HMSO
Royal Society for Public Health 2015, Health on the High Street, UK
Sandiford, P.J. & Divers, P. 2011, The public house and its role in societies margins, International Journal of Hospitality Management 30
36
Save the Duke 2015, The community campaign to save the Duke of Marlborough, Somersham. [Online] [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Smith, M.A. 1983, Social Usages of the Public Drinking House: Changing Aspects of Class and Leisure, The British Journal of Sociology Volume 34 No. 3, September
Smith, R. 2008, Some reflections on the dynamics of village entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 6
Smithers, R. 2012 Supermarkets targeting pubs to exploit legal loophole, says Camra. The The Guardian [Online] 19th November. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
Snowden, C. 2014, Briefing 14:08: Closing Time – Who’s killing the British Pub?, UK: Institute of Economic Affairs
Sturdy, J. 2015, Essex Beardsmen club descend on Queen's head in Chelmsford chinwag. The Essex Chronicle [Online] 22nd February. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from:
The Lost Pubs Project [Online] [Accessed various dates between 1st April – 8th August 2015] Available from
The Planning & Design Bureau Ltd (2014), Supporting statement for full planning application reference PA/14/02928 London: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
The Planning Inspectorate 2008, Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/A/07/2059860, Site at 54 Latchingdon Road, Cold Norton, Chelmsford, Essex CM3 6JB, UK
The Planning Inspectorate 2010, Appeal Decision Appeal A Ref: APP/E5900/E/10/2128582 Sebright Arms, 31-35 Coate Street, London, E2 9AG, UK
The Prideview Group 2015, Morrisions M Local Chelmsford. [Online] [Accessed 29th July 2015] Available from
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (Statutory Instruments No. 418 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (Statutory Instruments No. 764 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO
The Town and Country Planning England (Use Class) Order 1950 (Statutory Instruments No. 1131 George VI.) London: HMSO 1959
The Town and Country Planning England and Wales (Use Class) Order 1963 (Statutory Instruments No. 708 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO
37
The Town and Country Planning England and Wales (Use Class) Order 1972 (Statutory Instruments No. 1385 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO Town and Country Planning, England, The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instruments No. 1101 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO
Town and Country Planning, England, The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013, (Statutory Instruments No. 596 Elizabeth II.) London: HMSO
Walker, A. 2014, Public Houses: How councils and communities can save pubs, UK: Campaign for Real Ale & Local Government Information Unit
Walker, P. 2015, Michelin Star chefs aim to give new lease of life to Green Man in Howe Street. The Essex Chronicle [Online] 22nd February. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/
Walters, B. 2015. Closing time for gay pubs – a new victim of London’s soaring property prices. The Guardian [Online] 4th February. [Accessed: 8th August 2015]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/04/closing-time-gay- pubs-lgbt-venues-property-prices
Washington Young LLP 2015, Planning Policy & Impact Statement 20 Reeves Road, London, E3 3PL (on behalf of applicant, for full planning application reference PA/15/00164), London Borough of Tower Hamlets
West Berkshire Council 2000, Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 19 Public Houses, Newbury.
38
Appendix 1: Maps of pubs in Tower Hamlets
Key:
Open pubs
Closed pubs
Vacant pubs/pub sites
39
Appendix 2: Definitions of pub categorisations
The categories devised for this study were influenced by those used by GVA Humberts Leisure in their study for City of Cambridge Council, and are set out below:
Community local These are defined broadly in line with the GVA Cambridge study, but with ‘suburban’ removed from the title to recognise that genuine community pubs are also widespread within inner city areas as well as small towns and villages. Primarily, these are pubs serving a local residential neighbourhood from which it would be expected that most day-to-day custom originates. Also, deviating slightly from the Cambridge definition it should be emphasised that such pubs might be located along primary thoroughfares rather than necessarily within the neighbourhood itself.
Edge of centre community In contrast to the Cambridge definition these pubs might be located outside of residential areas. For example they will predominantly serve a nearby residential community but would also attract a wider customer base by virtue of their location in areas of greater accessibility such as along primary routes, within smaller or local town centres or at the edge of larger town centres.
Town centre pub Cambridge have classed these as city/village taverns though for clarity this study introduces its own title as there is a fundamental difference between pubs in the centres of urban areas and those in rural villages. However, the principle behind their classification including nature of custom remains the same.
Isolated rural pub This is a new classification introduced for this study. These pubs would typically be located in isolation from other buildings or within a settlement containing few dwellings. They would rely on a wider customer base than just nearby residents, as the immediate population would be too small to sustain a pub or indeed any other type of service. In addition, whereas residents of urban areas would most likely have access to a range of goods and services within rural areas the pub might provide the only non-residential meeting space and may serve other community purposes.
Isolated urban pub These are pubs located within urban areas but detached from residential neighbourhoods, town centres and main thoroughfares. They might be located within business or industrial areas characterised by low levels of passing trade in the evening and weekends with trade focussed on lunchtimes and early evening, or in areas of open space in which the pub itself might be an attraction.
Pub-restaurant These have been classified differently to the Cambridge study which cites examples of particular operators (Beefeater and Harvester) – though the particular typology associated with those operators isn’t typically found within large cities. This study classes pub-restaurants as those at which food might be the primary offer or the
40 main attraction of the pub as a destination, but where an element of a meeting place with open access continues to be offered. Where there is little or no element of bar service other than to wait before having a meal it is considered that the premises is not a pub. This category would include ‘gastro-pubs’, subject to the criteria stated. Where there is scope for ambiguity the venue’s description of itself has been used to identify whether it is a pub or a restaurant.
Special interest pub These pubs cater to particular social groups or interests, but exclude specialist food- led pubs or those dedicated to serving real ales, craft beers, ciders and other niche products from local brewers and producers. Such pubs would generally be located within designated town centres or other accessible locations, but this is not always the case. They would draw custom from a wider area, possibly from beyond the boundary of the borough, town or city in which they are located. Such pubs might include pubs dedicated to live music and performance such as comedy, and may on occasion restrict entrance or charge an entry fee. Special interest pubs might also cater to particular nationalities, such as Irish pubs, regardless of whether custom is actually drawn from the target community. Equally, pubs for the LGBT+ community would also feature in this category. To differentiate between a pub and venues not covered by this study, it would be expected that charged entry, dress code restrictions or other such limitations of entry are not continuously applied.
41
Appendix 3: Subsequent use of closed pubs within the study areas by pub type
Table 1: Subsequent use of closed ‘Community local’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Barking & Dagenham 4 26.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 46.7 2 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 13.3 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Urban 1 11.1 0 0.0 3 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 50.0 0 0.0 1 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ipswich 6 31.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.3 0 0.0 5 26.3 3 15.8 1 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 15.8 0 0.0 Tower Hamlets 3 2.6 3 2.6 13 11.2 1 0.9 3 2.6 55 47.4 2 1.7 22 19.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 10 8.6 2 1.7 Total - all areas 14 8.3 3 1.8 20 11.8 2 1.2 3 1.8 75 44.4 7 4.1 24 14.2 1 0.6 2 1.2 16 9.5 2 1.2
Table 2: Subsequent use of closed ‘Edge of centre community’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0 Barking & Dagenham 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 Ipswich 3 17.6 2 11.8 5 29.4 1 5.9 0 0.0 3 17.6 0 0.0 2 11.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.9 Tower Hamlets 3 12.0 2 8.0 9 36.0 1 4.0 0 0.0 3 12.0 2 8.0 2 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 8.0 1 4.0 Total - all areas
42
Table 3: Subsequent use of closed ‘Isolated rural’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barking & Dagenham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ipswich 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower Hamlets 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0.0 0 0 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total - all areas
Table 4: Subsequent use of closed ‘Town centre’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 Barking & Dagenham 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Rural 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 3 60.0 0 0.0 Ipswich 4 20.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 1 5.0 2 10.0 0 0.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 5.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 0 0.0 Tower Hamlets 5 15.2 1 3.0 6 18.2 1 3.0 2 6.1 1 3.0 3 9.1 3 9.1 1 3.0 3 9.1 7 21.2 0 0.0 Total - all areas
43
Table 5: Subsequent use of closed ‘Pub-restaurant’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barking & Dagenham 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0 Ipswich 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower Hamlets 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 Total - all areas
Table 6: Subsequent use of closed ‘Special interest’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barking & Dagenham 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ipswich 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 0 0.0 Tower Hamlets 0 0.0 1 12.5 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 25.0 0 0.0 1 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 25.0 0 0.0 Total - all areas
44
Table 7: Subsequent use of closed ‘Isolated urban’ pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 1 33.3 Barking & Dagenham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelmsford - Rural 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Ipswich 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 1 33.3 Tower Hamlets 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 42.9 2 28.6 Total - all areas
Table 8: Subsequent use of all closed pubs
Mixed use Mixed use Demolished (not Area-wide Authority A1 A2 A3 A5 B1 C3 Other (including Vacant (land including redevelopment residential) vacant) residential) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 4 16.7 0 0.0 2 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 33.3 2 8.3 1 4.2 0 0.0 1 4.2 5 20.8 1 4.2 Barking & Dagenham 1 5.6 0 0.0 9 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 16.7 1 5.6 1 5.6 1 5.6 0 0.0 1 5.6 1 5.6 Chelmsford - Urban 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 46.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 46.7 0 0.0 1 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Chelmsford - Rural 7 23.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 1 3.3 0 0.0 5 16.7 5 16.7 1 3.3 0 0.0 1 3.3 8 26.7 0 0.0 Ipswich 10 6.2 6 3.7 22 13.7 3 1.9 5 3.1 60 37.3 4 2.5 26 16.1 1 0.6 3 1.9 17 10.6 4 2.5 Tower Hamlets 22 8.9 7 2.8 41 16.5 4 1.6 5 2.0 83 33.5 12 4.8 30 12.1 2 0.8 5 2.0 31 12.5 6 2.4 Total - all areas
45
Table 9: Pub closures by type
Barking & Dagenham Chelmsford - urban Chelmsford - rural Ipswich Tower Hamlets Total % of % of % of % of % of % of Closures total Closures total Closures total Closures total Closures total Closures total Community Local 15 62.5 9 50.0 10 66.6 19 63.3 116 72 169 68.1 Edge of centre community 1 4.2 3 16.7 1 6.7 3 10 17 10.6 25 10.1 Isolated rural pub 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 26.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.6 Town centre pub 5 20.8 3 16.7 0 0.0 5 16.7 20 12.4 33 13.3 Pub-restaurant 0 0.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 1 3.3 0 0.0 2 0.8 Special interest pub 0 0.0 2 11.1 0 0.0 1 3.3 5 3.1 8 3.2 Isolated urban pub 3 12.5 0 0 0 0.0 1 3.3 3 1.9 7 2.8
46
Table 10: Total pub closures by year
Barking & Chelmsford Chelmsford Tower Dagenham - Urban - Rural Ipswich Hamlets TOTAL 2000 1 2 0 1 11 15 2001 2 0 0 0 17 19 2002 0 1 0 1 26 28 2003 1 0 0 0 9 10 2004 1 1 1 0 8 11 2005 2 2 1 1 13 19 2006 0 2 2 1 13 18 2007 0 0 2 1 8 11 2008 2 1 0 2 8 13 2009 3 1 3 2 6 15 2010 5 0 0 2 7 14 2011 2 1 2 2 4 11 2012 1 1 2 4 2 10 2013 2 2 0 5 9 18 2014 1 1 2 4 10 18 2015 0 2 0 1 8 11 2016 1 1 0 3 2 7 TOTAL 24 18 15 30 161 248
47
Table 11: Annual net percentage decline of pubs by study area
Total (Excluding Barking & Chelmsford Chelmsford Tower Total (All Tower Dagenham - urban - rural Ipswich Hamlets areas) Hamlets ) 2000 0.00% -2.99% 0.00% -1.18% -3.97% -2.71% -1.10% 2001 -4.35% 1.54% 0.00% 0.00% -6.39% -3.58% -0.37% 2002 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -1.19% -10.44% -5.57% -0.37% 2003 -2.27% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% -4.04% -1.97% 0.00% 2004 -2.33% -1.52% -1.33% 0.00% -3.74% -2.45% -1.12% 2005 -4.76% -3.08% -1.35% -1.20% -6.31% -4.34% -2.27% 2006 0.00% -3.17% -2.74% -1.22% -6.74% -4.30% -1.94% 2007 0.00% 0.00% -2.82% 0.00% -4.44% -2.49% -0.79% 2008 -5.00% -1.64% 0.00% -2.47% -4.65% -3.32% -1.99% 2009 -7.89% -1.67% -4.35% -1.27% -3.66% -3.70% -3.25% 2010 -14.29% 0.00% 0.00% -2.56% -4.43% -3.85% -2.94% 2011 -6.67% -1.69% -3.03% -1.32% -2.65% -2.86% -2.60% 2012 0.00% 0.00% -3.13% -4.00% -1.36% -2.06% -2.22% 2013 -7.14% -3.45% 0.00% -5.56% -5.52% -4.80% -3.64% 2014 -3.85% 1.79% -3.23% -4.41% -5.84% -4.10% -2.36% 2015 0.00% -3.51% 0.00% -1.54% -6.20% -3.62% -1.45% 2016 -4.00% -1.82% 1.67% -3.13% -1.65% -1.71% -1.47% TOTAL -47.83% -19.40% -17.57% -27.06% -57.04% -44.29% -26.10%
48
Appendix 4 – Pubs within Tower Hamlets Table 12: Pubs in Tower Hamlets that were open on 31st December 2016
Pub Type Address ACV Listed 5b Urban Bar Community local 27, Three Colt Street, London, E14 8HH N N Albert Town centre pub 74, St Stephens Road, London, E3 5JL N N Angel & Crown Community local 170, Roman Road, London, E2 0RY N N Approach Tavern Community local 47, Approach Road, London, E2 9LY N N Archers Town centre pub 42, Osborn Street, London, E1 6TD N N Artful Dodger Community local 47, Royal Mint Street, London, E1 8LG N G2 Bancroft Arms Community local 410, Mile End Road, London, E1 4RQ N N Bar Locks PH Community local 21, White Church Lane, London, E1 7QR N N Bar Valient'e Town centre pub 423, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0AN N N Beehive Community local 104-106, Empson Street, London, E3 3LT N N Bell Town centre pub 50, Middlesex Street, London, E1 7EX N N Birdcage Edge of centre community 80, Columbia Road, London, E2 7QB N LL Black Horse Town centre pub 40, Leman Street, London, E1 8EU N N Blind Beggar Town centre pub 337-341, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1BU N N Bow Bells Edge of centre community 116, Bow Road, London, E3 3AA N N Brown Bear Town centre pub 139, Leman Street, London, E1 8EY N G2 Callaghans Edge of centre community 55, Chrisp Street, London, E14 6LP N N Camel Public House Community local 277, Globe Road, London, E2 0JD N N Cape Town centre pub 5, Thomas More Square, London, E1W 1YW N N Captain Kidd Community local 108, Wapping High Street, London, E1W 2NE N N Carlton Community local 238, Bancroft Road, London, E1 4BS N N Carpenters Arms Community local 73, Cheshire Street, London, E2 6EG N N Carpenters Arms Community local 135, Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 5RN N N Castle Special interest pub 44, Commercial Road, London, E1 1LN N N Cat and Canary Town centre pub 25-27, Fishermans Walk, London, E14 4DH N N
49
Pub Type Address ACV Listed Coborn Arms Community local 42163, Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA N N Commercial Tavern Town centre pub 142, Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU N G2 Crown Community local 667, Commercial Road, London, E14 7LW N N Crown Community local 223, Grove Road, London, E3 5SN N N Culpepper Pub-restaurant 40, Commercial Street, London, E1 6LP N N Dean Swift Community local 42041, Deancross Street, London, E1 2QA N N Dickens Inn Town centre pub St Katharines Way, London, E1 9LB N N Dispensary Pub-restaurant 19a, Leman Street, London, E1 8EJ N N Dog & Truck Community local 72, Back Church Lane, London, E1 1LX N N Duke of Wellington Community local 42352, Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE Y N Dundee Arms Town centre pub 339, Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9LH N N Eleanor Arms Community local 460, Old Ford Road, London, E3 5JP N N Ferry House Pub-restaurant 26, Ferry Street, London, E14 3DT N G2 Festival Inn Edge of centre community 71, Grundy Street, London, E14 6AD N N Florist Arms Special interest pub 255, Globe Road, London, E2 0JD N N Galvaniser's PH Community local 2, Devas Street, London, E3 3FD N N George Community local 114-114a, Glengall Grove, London, E14 3ND N N George & Dragon Town centre pub 2-4, Hackney Road, London, E2 7NS N N Golden Heart Town centre pub 110, Commercial Street, London, E1 6LZ N G2 Good Samaritan Town centre pub 87, Turner Street, London, E1 2AE N N Goodmans Field Town centre pub 87-91, Mansell Street, London, E1 8AP N N Grapes PH Community local 76, Narrow Street, London, E14 8BP N G2 Great Eastern Community local 1, Glenaffric Avenue, London, E14 3BW N G2 Green Goose Community local 112, Anglo Road, London, E3 5HD N N Gun Pub-restaurant 27, Cold Harbour, London, E14 9NS N G2 Half Moon Town centre pub 213-233, Mile End Road, London, N N Hare Town centre pub 505, Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 9BU N N Henry Addington Town centre pub 22-28, Mackenzie Walk, London, E14 4PH N N
50
Pub Type Address ACV Listed Hope & Anchor Community local 14, Newby Place, London, E14 0EY N N Horn of Plenty Community local 36, Globe Road, London, E1 4DU N N Hungerford Arms Community local 240, Commercial Road, London, E1 2NB N N Iceland Public House Isolated urban pub 421, Wick Lane, London, E3 2JG N N Indo Town centre pub 133, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1DT N N Kings Arms Community local 11a, Buckfast Street, London, E2 6EY N N Leman Street Tavern Town centre pub 31 Leman Street, London, E1 8PT N N Little Bull Urban Bar Town centre pub 176, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1BJ N N Little Driver Edge of centre community 125, Bow Road, London, E3 2AN N LL Lord Morpeth PH Community local 402, Old Ford Road, London, E3 5NR N N Lord Nelson Community local 1-1a, Manchester Road, London, E14 3BD N N Lord Tredegar Community local 50, Lichfield Road, London, E3 5AL N G2 Mad George Tavern Special interest pub 373, Commercial Road, London, E1 0LA N G2 Manor Arms Community local 150, East India Dock Road, London, E14 0BP N N Marksman Town centre pub 254, Hackney Road, London, E2 7SJ N N Marquis Of Cornwallis Edge of centre community 304, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0AG N N Misty Moon Town centre pub 456, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0EA N N Morgan Arms Community local 43, Morgan Street, London, E3 5AA N N Mother Kelly's Bottle Shop & Tap Town centre pub 260-261, Paradise Row, London, E2 9LE N N Room Narrow Pub-restaurant 44, Narrow Street, London, E14 8DQ N N New Globe Edge of centre community 359, Mile End Road, London, E3 4QS N N Old George Town centre pub 379, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0AN N N Old Ship Community local 17, Barnes Street, London, E14 7NW N N Oliver Conquest Town centre pub 70, Leman Street, London, E1 8EU N G2 Owl & The Pussycat Edge of centre community 34, Redchurch Street, London, E2 7DP N N Palm Tree Community local 127, Grove Road, London, E3 5RP N N Peacock Community local 145, Aylward Street, London, E1 0QW N N
51
Pub Type Address ACV Listed Pepper Saint Ontiod Town centre pub 21, Pepper Street, London, E14 9RP N N Perseverance Community local 110-112, Pritchards Road, London, E2 9AP N N Pier Tavern Community local 299, Manchester Road, London, E14 3HN N N Pipeline Special interest pub 94-98, Middlesex Street, London, E1 7DA N N Plough Isolated urban pub 60, Dace Road, , E3 2NQ N N Pride Of Spitalfields Edge of centre community 3, Heneage Street, London, E1 5LJ N N Prince Regent Community local 81, Salmon Lane, London, E14 7PR N N Princess of Prussia Town centre pub 15, Prescot Street, London, E1 8AZ N N Prospect of Whitby Community local 57, Wapping Wall, London, E1W 3SH N G2 Queens Head Community local 8, Flamborough Street, London, E14 7LS N G2 Railway Tavern Town centre pub 576-578, Commercial Road, London, E14 7JD N N Royal Charlie Community local 116-116a, Chrisp Street, London, E14 6NL N N Royal Oak Edge of centre community 73, Columbia Road, London, E2 7RG N N Salmon & Ball Town centre pub 502, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0EA N G2 Sebright Arms Special interest pub 31-35, Coate Street, London, E2 9AG N N Shakespeare Town centre pub 460, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0EA N N Ship Community local 290, Westferry Road, London, E14 3AG N N Sir Sydney Smith Edge of centre community 22 Dock Street, London, E1 8JP N N Star of Bethnal Green Town centre pub 359, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 6LG N N Star of the East Community local 805a, Commercial Road, London, E14 7HG N G2 Tavern Town centre pub 441, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 0AN N N Ten Bells Town centre pub 84, Commercial Street, London, E1 6LY N G2 Thomas Neale Edge of centre community 39-39a, Watney Market, London, E1 2PP N N Tooke Arms Community local 165, Westferry Road, London, E14 8NH N N Town of Ramsgate Community local 62, Wapping High Street, London, E1W 2PN N G2 Turners Old Star Community local 14, Watts Street, London, E1W 2QG Y N Victoria Community local 110, Grove Road, London, E3 5TH N N Victory Community local 27, Vyner Street, London, E2 9DQ N N
52
Pub Type Address ACV Listed Water Poet Community local 42258, Folgate Street, London, E1 6BX N N Well and Bucket Town centre pub 143, Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 7DG N G2 Wentworth Arms Community local 127, Eric Street, London, E3 4SR N N White Hart Town centre pub 89, Whitechapel High Street, London, E1 7QX N N White Hart Town centre pub 1, Mile End Road, London, E1 4TP N N White Horse PH Community local 48, White Horse Road, London, E1 0ND N N White Swan Town centre pub 21, Alie Street, London, E1 8DA N G2 White Swan Special interest pub 556, Commercial Road, London, E14 7JD N LL White Swan and Cuckoo Community local 97, Wapping Lane, London, E1W 2RW N N Widows Son Community local 75, Devons Road, London, E3 3PJ N G2 Young Prince Edge of centre community 448, Roman Road, London, E3 5LU N N
53
Table 13: Pubs in Tower Hamlets that were closed on 31st December 2016
Primary Mixed- Application ADRESS Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished NO NAME A POST new use use Reference 2 Aberfeldy Tavern Community local 26 Aberfeldy Street, London, E14 0NU 2014 C3 Y N N N Y PA/11/01505 26 Aberfeldy Street London E14 0NU
African Queen Community local 46 Grundy Street, London, 2007 C3 N N N N N PA/02/00538 46 Grundy Street London
133-137 Whitechapel High Street, Whitechapel High Aldgate Exchange Town centre pub 2014 Vacant N N N N N 133-137 London E1 7QA London, E1 7QA Street The Alma Community local 41 Spelman Street, London, E1 5LP 2002 B1 N N N N N PA/01/01303 41 Spelman Street London E1 5LP
The Anchor & Hope Community local 41 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH 2008 C3 Y N N N N PA/10/00322 41 Westferry Road London E14 8JH
Ancient Briton Community local 42 Glaucus Street, London, E3 3QS 2005 C3 N N N N Y PA/04/00060 42 Glaucus Street London E3 3QS
The Artichoke Community local 91 Stepney Way, London, 2001 Vacant N N N N N 91 Stepney Way
Barley Mow Community local 42 Headlam Street, London, E1 5RT 2001 C3 N N N N Y PA/00/00926 42 Headlam Street London E1 5RT
Edge of centre Bee Hive Ph 230 Roman Road, London, E2 0RY 2001 C3 N N N N N No application 230 Roman Road London E2 0RY community Black Bull Town centre pub 199 Whitechapel Road, London, 2007 A3 N Y N N N N/A 199 Whitechapel Road London
Special interest The Black Horse 168 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ 2009 A3 Y N N G2 N PA/13/02885 pub Blacksmiths Arms Community local 25 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH 2002 A3 Y Y N N N PA/02/01038 25 Westferry Road London E14 8JH
67, Bromley High Street, London, E3 Blue Anchor Community local 2015 Vacant N N N N N 3EN Bootys Riverside Bar Community local 92a Narrow Street, London, E14 8BP 2013 B1 N N N N N PA/14/02667 92a Narrow Street London E14 8BP
Edge of centre Brewery Tap 500 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HY 2013 C3 Y N N N N PA/13/03110 500 Commercial Road London E1 0HY community Bricklayers Arms Community local 71 Redmans Road, London, 2003 C3 N N N N Y PA/02/00046 71 Redmans Road London
Bridge House Community local 14 Bow Common Lane, London, 2000 C3 N N N N N Unauthorised 14 Bow Common Lane
Britannia Community local 12 Chilton St, London, E2 6DZ 2000 C3 N N N N N PA/97/00170 185 Bow Common Lane, London, E3 Britannia Community local 2014 C3 Y N N N Y PA/11/02298 185 Bow Common Lane London E3 4JJ 4JJ Britannia Community local Globe Road, London, 2004 C3 N N N N Y PA/03/01708 Globe Road London
Britannia Community local 44 Morris Street, London, E1 2NP 2002 A5 N N N N N Unavailable 44 Morris Street London E1 2NP
British Oak Community local 28 Robin Hood Lane, London, 2003 Vacant N N N N Y British Prince Community local 49 Bromley Street, London, 2006 A1 Y N N G2 N PA/09/02576 49 Bromley Street London
Brunswick Arms Community local 78 Blackwall Way, London, E14 9QG 2007 C3 N N N N Y PA/00/00267 78 Blackwall Way London E14 9QG
54
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Builders Arms Community local 162 Brownfield Street, London, 2004 C3 N N N N N Unavailable 162 Brownfield Street London
Caledonian Arms Community local 62 Fairfield Road 2000 C3 N N N N N PA/03/01774 PA/00/01259 Cartys Free House Community local 68 Poplar High Street, London, E14 2001 C3 N N N N Y 68 Poplar High Street London E14
Cavalier Community local 89 Dunbridge Street, London, E2 6JJ 2001 B1 N N N N N PA/99/00957 Edge of centre Caxton 50 The Highway, London, E1W 2BG 2013 C3 N N N N N PA/11/00877 community Special interest Charlies 122-124 Globe Road, London, 2009 C3 N N N N N PA/07/01965 122-124 Globe Road London pub City of Carlisle Community local 61 Royal Mint Street, London, E1 8LG 2010 A3 N Y N N N N/A 61 Royal Mint Street London E1 8LG
Edge of centre City Pride 15 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH 2013 C3 Y N N N Y PA/08/02293 15 Westferry Road London E14 8JH community Colet Arms Community local 94 White Horse Road, London, 2003 C3 N N N LL N PA/03/01080 94 White Horse Road London
Conant Arms Community local 41a Stainsby Road, London, E14 2008 C3 N N N N Y PA/06/00852 41a Stainsby Road London E14
Conquerer Community local 2 Austin Street, London, E2 7NB 2008 C3 Y N N N N PA/08/02279 2 Austin Street London E2 7NB
262 Manchester Road, London, E14 E14 Cubitt Arms Community local 2011 C3 Y N N N N PA/10/02794 262 Manchester Road London 3HW 3HW Edge of centre Dolphin 85 Redchurch Street, , 2002 A1 N Y N LL N N/A 85 Redchurch Street community Old Bethnal Green Dover Castle Community local 122 Old Bethnal Green Road, London, 2002 C3 N N N N Y PA/07/03158 122 London Road Duke of Cambridge Community local 25 Felix Street, London, E2 9EJ 2001 C3 N N N N N PA/00/00177 25 Felix Street London E2 9EJ
Duke of Wellington Community local 52 Cyprus Street, London, 2004 C3 N N N G2 N PA/06/00241 52 Cyprus Street London
Duke of Wellington Community local 63 Brady Street, London, 2002 C3 Y N N N Y PA/00/01462 63 Brady Street London
Duke of York Community local 129 Antill Road, London, E3 5BW 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/99/00682 Durham Arms Community local 408 Hackney Road, London, E2 7AP 2008 C3 Y N N N N PA/09/00058 408 Hackney Road London E2 7AP
Edge of centre Earl Grey 272 Bethnal Green Road, London, 2005 A1 Y Y N N N PA/05/00147 272 Bethnal Green Road London community Earl of Ellesmere Community local 19 Chisenhale Road, London, E3 5QY 2001 C3 Y N N N N PA/97/00021 Enterprise Community local 145 Three Colt Street, London, 2002 A3 N Y N N N N/A 145 Three Colt Street London
Flamingos Community local 163 Gosset Street, London, E2 6NR 2006 C3 N N N N N Foresters Community local 235 St Leonards Road, London, 2004 C3 N N N N N PA/04/00466 235 St Leonards Road London
55
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Student Fountain Community local 438 Mile End Road, London, E1 4PE 2009 N N N N Y PA/09/01906 438 Mile End Road London E1 4PE halls. Fountain Community local 123 Sceptre Road, London, E2 0JU 2013 C3 Y N N N Y PA/10/00987 123 Sceptre Road London E2 0JU
Freemasons Arms Community local 98 Salmon Lane, London, E14 7PQ 2005 C3 N N N N Y PA/05/01245 98 Salmon Lane London E14 7PQ
285 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 Funky Munky Town centre pub 2004 A1 N Y N N N N/A 285 Whitechapel Road London E1 1BY 1BY George IV Community local 7 Ida Street, London, E14 6LT 2012 C3 N N N N N PA/11/02065 7 Ida Street London E14 6LT
PA/05/01502 The Germans Community local 145 St Leonards Road, London, 2005 C3 N N N N N
269 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 Grave Maurice Town centre pub 2010 A2 N Y N N N N/A 269 Whitechapel Road London E1 1BY 1BY 287 Cambridge Heath Road, London, Green Man Town centre pub 2003 C1 Y N N N N PA/00/00212 287 Cambridge Heath Road London E2 0EL E2 0EL Greenwich Pensioner Community local 28, Bazely Street, London, E14 0ES 2016 Vacant N N N G2 N Greyhound Ph Community local 32 Old Ford Road, London, 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/00/00740 32 Old Ford Road London
Guildford Arms Community local 93 Godalming Road, London, E14 6BJ 2005 C3 N N N N Y PA/05/00549 93 Godalming Road London E14 6BJ
Mixed The Gun Town centre pub 54 Brushfield Street, London, E1 6AG 2015 Y N N N Y PA/11/02220 54 Brushfield Street London E1 6AG use Habanas Community local 74 Bonner Street, London, E2 0QP 2012 A3 N Y N N N N/A 74 Bonner Street London E2 0QP
Edge of centre The Halfway House 388 Hackney Road, London, 2005 A3 N Y N N N N/A 388 Hackney Road London community Hand & Flower Community local 72a Parnell Road, London, E3 2RU 2010 A3 N Y N N N N/A 72a Parnell Road London E3 2RU
Edge of centre The Hayfield Tavern 158 Mile End Road, , 2005 A3 N Y N N N N/A 158 Mile End Road community Hearts of Oak Town centre pub 36 Dock Street, London, E1 8JP 2002 B1 N N N N Y Pre-2000 36 Dock Street London E1 8JP
Area Heron Town centre pub 3 Heron Quay, London, 2008 Y N N N Y PA/07/01014 3 Heron Quay London redev. Hind Community local 212 Hind Grove, , E14 6HP 2008 A1 Y Y N N N PA/09/00451 212 Hind Grove E14 6HP
Hollands Community local 42194 Exmouth Street, London, E1 2002 C3 N N N G2 N PA/99/01229 7-9 Exmouth Street London E1
Imperial Crown Community local 50 St Leonards Street, London, 2004 C3 Y N N N N PA/03/01241 50 St Leonards Street London
Special interest 116-118 Hackney Road, London, E2 Joiners Arms 2015 Vacant N N Y N N 116-118 Hackney Road London E2 7QL pub 7QL Kings Arms Community local 230 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ 2008 A3 N Y N N N N/A 230 Mile End Road London E1 4LJ
56
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Kings Arms Community local 513 Cable Street, London, E1W 3ER 2011 C3 Y N N N N PA/07/01705 513 Cable Street London E1W 3ER
Kings Arms Community local 167 Bow Road, London, E3 2SE 2010 C1 N N N LL N PA/11/01169 167 Bow Road London E3 2SE
Kings Arms Community local 514 Commercial Road, London, E1 0HY 2002 A3 N Y N N N N/A 514 Commercial Road London E1 0HY
65-67 Old Bethnal Green Road, Old Bethnal Green Kings Arms Community local 2001 C3 N N N N N PA/01/00559 65-67 London E2 6QA London, E2 6QA Road PA/01/01505 Kingsbridge Arms Community local 154-156 Westferry Road, London, 2003 C3 Y Y N N N 154-156 Westferry Road London
Edge of centre Kings Head 128 Commercial Road, London, E1 1NL 2000 A1 N Y N N N N/A community Knave of Clubs Town centre pub 25 Bethnal Green Road, London, 2001 A3 N Y N N N N/A 25 Bethnal Green Road London
Isolated urban Demolish Lea Tavern 90 White Post Lane, London, E9 5EN 2007 N N N N Y PA/10/01728 90 White Post Lane London E9 5EN pub ed Lion Community local 8 Tapp Street, London, E1 5RE 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/99/01315 Liquor Inn Community local 171-173 Devons Road, London, E3 3QX 2014 Vacant N N N N N 171-173 Devons Road London E3 3QX
162 White Horse Road, London, E1 Little Star Community local 2009 C3 N N N N N PA/10/01394 162 White Horse Road London E1 0NW 0NW Lord Nelson Community local 230 Commercial Road, London, E1 2NB 2006 A3 N Y N N N N/A 230 Commercial Road London E1 2NB
Lord Palmerston Community local 45 Hewlett Road, London, E3 5NA 2003 C3 N N N N N PA/03/00088 45 Hewlett Road London E3 5NA
Lord Stanley Community local 25 Carmen Street, London, E14 6AX 2014 C3 Y N N N N PA/12/02132 25 Carmen Street London E14 6AX
Edge of centre Lounge Bar 473 Roman Road, London, E3 5LX 2005 A5 N N N N N PA/05/00552 473 Roman Road London E3 5LX community Lovatt Arms Community local 301 Burdett Road, London, E14 7EL 2004 C3 N N N N Y PA/04/00372 Match Maker Town centre pub 580-586 Roman Road, London, E3 5ES 2010 A1 N Y N N N N/A 580-586 Roman Road London E3 5ES
Mercers Arms Community local 34 Belgrave Street, London, 2006 C3 N N N G2 N PA/05/01115 34 Belgrave Street London
Milestone Community local 588 Mile End Road, London, E3 4PH 2010 A3 N Y N N N N/A 588 Mile End Road London E3 4PH
Special interest Millennium 43 East Smithfields, London, E1 9AP 2000 C3 Y N N N Y PA/00/01839 pub Milton Arms Community local 28a Wrights Road, London, E3 5LD 2006 C3 N N N N Y PA/05/00338 28a Wrights Road London E3 5LD
The Mint Town centre pub 12 East Smithfield, London, E1W 1AP 2009 Vacant N N N N N 12 East Smithfield London E1W 1AP
50 Bromley High Street, London, E3 Moulders Arms Community local 2006 C3 N N N N Y PA/06/00617 50 Bromley High Street London 3EP 17-19 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 A3/Sui Nag’s Head Town centre pub 2005 N N N N N PA/06/00294 1DU Generis
57
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Special interest Nelsons Head 32 Horatio Street, London, E2 7SB 2015 Vacant N N N N N 32 Horatio Street London E2 7SB pub New Cotton Inn Community local 92 St Pauls Way, London, E3 4AL 2001 C3 Y N N N Y PA/02/00527 92 St Pauls Way London E3 4AL
Edge of centre Norfolk Arms 460 Hackney Road, London, E2 9EG 2007 A3 N Y N N N N/A community North Pole Community local 74 Manilla Street, London, E14 8LG 2014 Vacant N N N N N PA/14/01328 74 Manilla Street London E14 8LG
Old Duke Of Community local 20 Reeves Road, London, E3 3PH 2013 Vacant N N N N N 20 Reeves Road London E3 3PH Cambridge Old Ford Tavern Community local 393 Old Ford Road, London, E3 2LU 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/00/00934 393 Old Ford Road London E3 2LU
Old Friends Community local 129 Roman Road, London, E2 0QN 2009 A3 N Y N N N N/A 129 Roman Road London E2 0QN
Old Globe Community local 191 Mile End Road, London, E1 4AA 2010 A2 N Y N LL N N/A 191 Mile End Road London E1 4AA
Old House At Home Community local 87 Watney Street, London, E1 2QE 2006 A1 N Y N N N N/A 87 Watney Street London E1 2QE
Sui Old Monk Town centre pub 32-38 Leman Street, London, E1 8EW 2005 N N N N N PA/07/01309 32-38 Leman Street London E1 8EW Generis Isolated urban Old Rose 128 The Highway, London, E1W 2BX 2013 Vacant N N N N N 128 The Highway London E1W 2BX pub Ordell Arms Community local 20-22 Ordell Road, London, E3 2DS 2001 C3 N N N N N PA/00/01678 Area Oxford Arms Community local 43 Stepney Way, London, 2005 N N N N Y 43 Stepney Way London redev. The Panther Community local 15 Turin Street, London, 2002 C3 N N N N Y PA/04/00164 15 Turin Street London
Perseverance Community local 125 Gosset Street, London, 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/00/00737 125 Gosset Street London
104 East India Dock Road, London, E14 The Phoenix Community local 2013 C3 Y N N N Y PA/12/01902 104 East India Dock Road London E14 0BP 0BP 299, Manchester Road, London, E14 Pier Tavern Community local 2015 Vacant N N N N N 3HN Prince Alfred Community local 86 Locksley Street, London, E14 7EJ 2013 Vacant N N N N N PA/11/00466 86 Locksley Street London E14 7EJ
Edge of centre Prince of Wales 2 Grove Road, London, E3 5AX 2005 A2 N Y N N N PA/06/00779 2 Grove Road London E3 5AX community Prince of Wales Community local 14 Waley Street, London, E1 4SZ 2002 C3 N N N N Y PA/00/00615 14 Waley Street London E1 4SZ
Prince of Wales Community local 76 Bishops Way, London, E2 9HL 2000 C3 Y N N N N PA/99/00397 Prince Regent Community local 105 Globe Road, London, 2004 A2 N Y N N N PA/04/01355 105 Globe Road London
Princess of Wales Community local 130 Brownfield Street, London, 2002 C3 N N N N N PA/00/00549 130 Brownfield Street London
Queen Of The Isle Community local 571 Manchester Rd, London, E14 3NX 2003 C3 Y N N N Y PA/02/00081 571 Manchester Road London E14 3NX
58
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Queen’s Head Community local 57 Greatorex Street, London, E1 5NP 2000 C3 N N N N Y PA/00/01802 Queen Victoria Community local 1 Gillender Street, London, 2001 C3 N N N N N PA/09/00438 1 Gillender Street London
Railway Tavern Community local 131 Globe Road, London, E2 0LJ 2014 C3 Y N N N Y PA/15/00306 131 Globe Road London E2 0LJ
Railway Tavern Community local 30 Grove Road, London, 2000 C3 N N N N N PA/99/00647 Ranelagh Arms Community local 599 Roman Road, London, E2 2RN 2001 A1 N Y N N N N/A 599 Roman Road London E2 2RN
Ravenscroft Community local 4 Ravenscroft Street, London, E2 7QG 2014 A3 N Y N N N N/A Edge of centre Red Deer 393 Cambridge Heath Road, , 2006 A2 N Y N LL N N/A 393 Cambridge Heath Road community 210 Poplar High Street, London, E14 Resolute Community local 2011 C3 Y N N N Y PA/10/00331 210 Poplar High Street London E14 0BB 0BB Rose & Crown Community local 17 Pennyfields, London, E14 8HP 2001 A3 N Y N N N N/A 17 Pennyfields London E14 8HP
Rose and Crown Community local 8 Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW 2007 A3 N Y N G2 N N/A 8 Stroudley Walk London E3 3EW
Rose and Punchbowl Community local 7 Redmans Road, London, E1 3AQ 2000 C3 N N N N Y PA/99/00446 Rose of Denmark Community local 612 Roman Road, London, E3 2RW 2006 A3/A5 N N N N N PA/07/01085 612 Roman Road London E3 2RW
Royal Cricketers Community local 211 Old Ford Road, London, E2 9PT 2003 C3 N N N N N PA/01/01376 Edge of centre 543, Commercial Road, London, E1 Royal Duchess 2015 Vacant N Y N N Y N/A community 0HQ 125 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 Royal Oak Town centre pub 2005 A1 N Y N N N N/A 1DT Scarborough Arms Community local 35 St Mark Street, London, E1 8DJ 2011 C3 N N N N PA/10/01602 35 St Mark Street London E1 8DJ
3 Wapping High Street, London, E1W Scots Arms Community local 2002 C3 Y N N N Y PA/01/00717 3 Wapping High Street London E1W 1LS 1LS Seven Stars Town centre pub 49 Brick Lane, London, E1 6PU 2002 Vacant N N N N N 49 Brick Lane London E1 6PU
111-112 Whitechapel High Street, Whitechapel High Seven Stars Town centre pub 2002 C3 Y N N N Y PA/02/00074 111-112 London E1 7PT London, E1 7PT Street Ship on the Green Community local 64 Stepney Green, London, E1 3JJ 2002 C3 N N N N N Unavailable 64 Stepney Green London E1 3JJ
473 Bethnal Green Road, London, E2 Ship Town centre pub 2000 A1 N Y N N N N/A 9QH Ship Community local 387 Cable Street, London, E1 0AH 2002 C3 N N N LL N PA/03/00811 387 Cable Street London E1 0AH
Edge of centre Sir Charles Napier 697 Commercial Road, London, 2002 C3 N N N N Y Pre-2000 697 Commercial Road London community Sir John Falstaff Community local 83 Cannon Street Road, London, 2002 C3 N N N N Y PA/01/00790 83 Cannon Street Road London
59
Primary Mixed- Application Pub Type Address Closed PD ACV Listed Demolished new use use Reference Demolish Sir John Franklin Community local 269 East India Dock Road, London, 2006 N N N N Y PA/08/01234 ed Edge of centre Soma 237 Mile End Road, London, 2007 A3 N Y N N N N/A 237 Mile End Road London community 19 Harbour Exchange Square, London, Harbour Exchange Spinnaker Town centre pub 2014 A1 N Y N N N N/A 19 London E14 9GE E14 9GE Square 233 Whitechapel Road, London, E1 Star And Garter Town centre pub 2001 A5 N N N N N Unavailable 233 Whitechapel Road London E1 1DB 1DB 805a, Commercial Road, London, E14 Star of the East Community local 2016 Vacant N N N G2 N 7HG Isolated urban Steamship 24 Naval Row, London, E14 9PS 2015 Vacant N N N N N pub Tenterden Arms Community local 224 Devons Road, London, 2007 C3 N N N N Y PA/08/00499 224 Devons Road London
Edge of centre Three Cranes 45 Mile End Road, London, E1 4TT 2002 A3 N Y N N N N/A 45 Mile End Road London E1 4TT community Three Swedish Crowns Community local 83 Wapping Lane, London, E1W 2RW 2000 A3 N Y N N N N/A Top O The Morning Community local 129 Cadogan Terrace, London, E9 5HP 2014 C3 Y N N N Y PA/14/01731 129 Cadogan Terrace London E9 5HP
The Unicorn Community local 27 Vivian Road, London, 2001 C3 N N N N N PA/01/01462 27 Vivian Road London
43 West India Dock Road, London, E14 Westferry Arms Community local 2015 Vacant N N N N N N/A 43 West India Dock Road London E14 8EZ 8EZ 236 Cambridge Heath Road, London, White Horse Town centre pub 2006 C3 Y N N N N PA/10/02818 236 Cambridge Heath Road London E2 9DA E2 9DA White Horse Community local 9-11 Poplar High Street, London, 2006 C3 N N N N Y PA/01/01192 11-Sep Poplar High Street London
Area White Swan Community local 130 Blackwall Way, London, 2001 Y N N N Y PA/00/00267 130 Blackwall Way London redev. Ye Old Hope Community local 2 Pollard Row, London, 2006 C3 N N N N N PA/02/01721 2 Pollard Row London
Yorkies Community local 65 Ellsworth Street, London, E2 0AU 2004 C3 N N N N Y PA/05/01809 65 Ellsworth Street London E2 0AU
60-60a Cordelia Street, London, E14 Young Prince Community local 2008 A2 N Y N N N N/A 60-60a Cordelia Street London E14 6DZ 6DZ
60
61